The Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Information Network
Again, thanks to those sending information to this ministry. The stories are the same; faithful Bereans searching the Scriptures themselves, sometimes for two years or longer, because their leaders would not be forthcoming concerning what they were spoon-feeding their congregations. This is the arrogance of GS leaders, withholding the whole truth until their (supposedly) spiritually inferior congregants are “ready” for the whole “truth.” Hence, they know themselves that the doctrine would be rejected out-of-hand if not gradually assimilated into what they are feeding parishioners. This is an across-the-board GS mode of operation that creates heavy-handed leadership and a cult-like atmosphere in many churches.
Some are sending information about the attitude of our spiritual kin concerning law and gospel. I am deeply indebted to one individual for introducing me to the writings of Walter Chantry. The book that was recommended to me should be arriving tomorrow. Apparently, Chantry’s implications in the book concerning NCT didn’t sit well with Reisinger and Zen—a very good sign. And Trust me (after reading Chantry’s “Today’s Gospel”), Chantry’s view of law and gospel doesn’t agree with Michael Horton either.
Also, a huge problem for the GS crowd is the novelty factor. Evangelicals have a hard time swallowing the idea that the church has been in the dark until 1980. Their (GS profs) disingenuous response is to claim Walter Marshall, Luther, and John Owen held to their views on sanctification. One reader is going to share some research possibly indicating that Walter Marshall’s writings were altered in a book about his supposed views on sanctification. Readers are also referring me to several people who were at ground level of the Sonship movement and were apposed to it, and I am hoping to personally interview those people in preparation for my chapter book on GS, which will articulate the history of the movement.
Almost everyone is saying, “You probably already know this but….” No! I haven’t been privy to any of it, keep it coming! The information is also great blog material, but I will not mention any sources by name unless it is a source that is already public. But, because I am a layman, and scratching out time for research is difficult, the information is invaluable. I am hoping for Feedback on the limited edition essay book to aid in the writing of the chapter book as well.
As you can see, the information coming in contends against bits and pieces of the movement. The goal of this network is to reveal the connection between all of these bits and pieces. You can also see the perplexity of some that certain respected individuals are doing this, that, or the other (inviting certain individuals to their conferences etc.). I find the perplexity concerning John Piper, especially Steve Camps piece, adorable. However, though there are many complicated pieces, the primary foundation is Sonship Theology which was not widely accepted by evangelicals until proponents changed to the “gospel” nomenclature. Therefore, the goal is also to identify the doctrine with the identity from which it came as a way to remove its cover.
In all, lest we forget: this is all driven by the conviction that doctrine determines what a life looks like, and unbiblical prescriptions for living the kingdom life must be contended against. That is love for others.
paul
Ice Skates in Hell and MacArthur’s White Witches
Has there ever been a bigger fan of John MacArthur Jr. than myself?
….I doubt it, but I guess we all have our Achilles heel, and with MacArthur it has been a serious lack of discernment over the years. Seems unbelievable when you consider his gargantuan contribution to Christianity. That’s why I didn’t believe what I heard in 1986 when I discovered, after just finishing “Inside Out” by Dr. Larry Crabb, that disciples of Crabb were running MacArthur’s counseling program at Grace Community Church. Crabb’s utter disdain for a literal approach to the Scriptures was evident in IO, comparing Scripture reading to a form of escapism “[like] masturbation” (p. 74: but Crabb also wrote statements concerning the inability of God’s word to effect “real change” on pages, 14, 15, 24 twice, 34, 37, 41, 43, 45 twice, 48, 89, 103, 120, 153, 157, 160, 177, 193, and 195). A former close friend of mine who was well acquainted with Mac told me sometime in 1988 that Mac had informed him that Grace Community Church had been “de-Crabbed.” I thought, “Ah, that explains it. GCC is a big church and he was probably busy writing a book or something; but boy, when he found out, those guy’s were outta there!” Not exactly; in fact, MacArthur and his staff had been repeatedly warned about Crabb’s theology, but apparently esteemed the protestants as less credible than Baalam’s donkey.
That brings me to the post someone sent me yesterday comparing Mac to the standard for solid evangelicalism. Ironically, the post was a contention concerning John Piper, a well documented close friend of Mac:
“Do you think there’s any chance whatsoever that the aforementioned Dr. John MacArthur would ever find himself listed there; [among heretics quoted favorably by Piper and endorsed by him] well, maybe about the time ice skates become standard issue in Hell.”
http://apprising.org/2010/06/16/questions-concerning-dr-john-piper/
Well my friend, then that would be the case. Despite outrageous, grossly unorthodox statements made by Piper and documented by men like Craig W. Booth ( http://thefaithfulword.org/wakeupcall.html ), MacArthur goes out of his way to grant Piper creditability at every turn. Unbelievably, Mac wrote the glowing forward to Piper’s theological Alice in Wonderland, “Desiring God,” and quotes Piper at least twice in his latest book, “Slave.” MacArthur also quotes Douglas Moo on page 142 who is one of the fathers of New Covenant Theology. A group of Master’s Seminary professors did a “Hey, NCT is kinda wrong but its propagators are really nice guys” series in, um, “contention” against NCT. Mac also quotes (in “Slave”) gospel sanctification guru Wayne Grudem.
Also, apparently skate-bent on getting a heretic for a keynote speaker at the 2007 Shepard’s conference, MacArthur invited CJ Mahaney, a (are you ready for this?) “Reformed Charismatic” to speak in Piper’s place. Also apparent is that CJ must not be like those wicked Charismatics Mac wrote about in “Charismatic Chaos,” but must be one of the good Charismatics running about. It reminds me of a blind date my step-son Ben had. Upon arrival, she introduced herself as a witch, but told him not to worry for she was a “white witch” (the good ones), not a “black witch”(the bad ones). Ben, not even a graduate of Master’s, didn’t buy it and soon left after some cordial conversation.
Also treading ice to replace the Crabb fiasco is the recently installed “Resolve” conferences which are part of the ministry repertoire at GCC. Here is what Dr. Peter Masters thinks of it:
“ Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, [Rick Holland] gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship….[regarding a fixture / speaker at Resolved conferences (every year thus far),CJ Mahaney]….Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.”
Masters also commented on “Together for the Gospel” (T4G) which MacArthur also indorses:
“A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book [Masters used information from Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen] is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”
Masters also comments on a prevalent mentality within the movement:
“The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, [neo-Calvinism] but the scene is certainly not a happy one…. Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. “
And Masters, in part, concludes with this: “The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”
MacArthur’s list of white witches is getting longer every year, and it seems to be effecting his theology as well. Mac has always taught with a superb balance of the vertical and horizontal, but in recent years, his teachings have become overly vertical, following in the way of John Piper who’s teachings offer little, or no practical application of the Scriptures. It’s all about “beholding as a way of becoming.” Notice in his book, “Slave” that he masterfully articulates what it is to be a slave to Christ, (what it looks like) but includes very little biblical information on how to apply that reality to our lives. However, admittedly, it could be my own incorrect interpretation because I no longer trust Mac because of his associations. There is just too much creepiness in all of this, like the syrupy interview conducted by antinomian / mystic Justin Taylor who interviewed Mac and Piper regarding how they became friends. It was a shameless, “see—Piper is orthodox” infomercial conducted by an individual (Taylor) who had a book of essays written and published to praise Piper. Of course, a team of wild horses could not have pulled Mac away from contributing to the book.
So, does Mac think his legacy is safe? Yes, maybe he has accomplished so much that he can now let his guard down. But what about Jimmy Swaggart? Unfair Comparison? I don’t know; compromise with a harlot, or compromising the truth from a lofty position given by the Lord, which is worse? Hmmmm. Oh, hold on, my phone is ringing: “Hi Ben! Your kidding? No, he is happily married. Ok, I’ll hold…. Uh, ok, hmmm, gee, I don’t know, I will try to find out. Ok, bye.”
It was Ben. The white witch called him. She wants to know if Rick Holland is married.
paul
Go Easy on Jenn—She’s Just a Good New Covenant Theology Girl
Recently, friends of this ministry have been sending me some good information and links as Christians are beginning to realize that something doesn’t smell right in reformed evangelical circles. This week, I will be referencing / compiling this information in the right-hand column of this blog. For instance, another blog has recently added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive. This information also makes it much easier for me to blog, being a layman and having other concerns.
In one link sent to me concerning John Piper’s disturbing connections to Rick Warren and others
( http://apprising.org/2010/04/26/is-this-doctrinal-and-sound-dr-john-piper/ ), the professing Christian / lesbian / musician Jennifer Knapp is mentioned as an example of Rick Warren’s “just be who you are” idea:
“’Rick Warren, in his talk at TED2006, stated (at approx. 21:00 in the video) that ‘God Smiles when You Be You’. He states a few seconds later that God gets pleasure out of ‘you being you.’ Friends, there’s a big problem with this message. Rick was speaking to an audience that was primarily non-Christians. Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Instead a humanistic message that ‘God loves us for being us’ was given. This message is not the Gospel, obviously, but the worst part, is that as a Christian pastor, Rick Warren basically just opened the floodgates for any behavior at all. Believers and non-believers alike can now simply do whatever they want, and think (based upon Rick) that God will smile upon them, and receive pleasure from people being whoever they desire to be.
After properly refuting that man-centered fantasy biblically Willman says:
‘Now let’s take Rick’s message and apply it to Jennifer Knapp, the ‘Christian’ who is now publicly stating that she’s a lesbian. She appeared on Larry King Live just the other day, and made this statement:
Larry King: You say you’re the happiest you’ve ever been right now?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m pretty darn happy.
Larry King: So you’re glad all of this happened?
Jennifer Knapp: I am not a regretful person.
Larry King: No, but you feel better?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m… I… I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician and part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest and to not feel like I have to lie or hide anything. I don’t necessarily want to talk about it all the time, but I don’t have to hide it either.
So based on what Rick Warren states, that God takes pleasure in ‘you being you’, Jennifer is currently being smiled upon by God, and He is taking pleasure in the fact that she is a lesbian.’”
As I attempt to use this blog to network information about gospel sanctification, I will continue to remind folks that the current neo-Calvinism movement is primarily made-up of New Covenant Theology and the idea that the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. What many of these bloggers do not yet understand is John Piper’s theological contribution to neo-Calvinism; namely, Christian hedonism. In other words, and as they already, I’m sure, strongly suspect is that these guys plp together for a reason. New Covenant Theology includes the idea that Christ came to fulfill the law (and thereby eliminating its need) and replaced it with a single law of love. What “love” is—is at the discretion of a believers conscience. I have seen elders operate by this approach firsthand. This theology drives Knapp’s life. Here are my comments on this in another post:
“Just this morning, a friend shared an article with me, and several others, from Christianity Today. It was a recent Jennifer Knapp (a contemporary Christian music artist) interview in which she defends her homosexual life style. She stated that she is not obligated to keep the Law because she, or anyone else, is unable to anyway. She (according to her) is only obligated to keep the greatest commandment of loving thy neighbor. Here is what she said:
‘But I’ve always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I’ve found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place. If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I’m sorry. I’m going to be a miserable failure.'”
She further poo-poos the law with this statement:
“…what most people refer to as the ‘clobber verses’ to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they’re eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics.”
Bottom line: most evangelicals see New Covenant Theology as a trivial disagreement regarding semantics. That’s hardly the case. Knapp’s lesbianism is just a symptom—the root cause is what needs to be destroyed: New Covenant Theology.
paul
Betrayed: Notable Evangelicals are Indifferent to the Laity’s Love for the Truth
It was 1983 and I was basking in the joy of my new-found faith in Jesus Christ. Wide-eyed, zealous, and naive. My thirst to learn truth was insatiable, but in my quest, I could have never imagined what I would endure. I went to seminary in less than one year from the time I was saved, and as one pastor told me, “’Seminary’ can end-up being ‘cemetery.’” True, but I survived it. However, the biggest roadblock was the Charismatic movement which was experiencing huge growth during that same year. In my zeal I thought, “Wow, if there is a deeper way to experience God, I certainly don’t want to miss it!” So, can I now tell you about the knowledgeable Berean / brother who took me aside and taught me the real role of the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant, and thereby reducing this challenge to a mere bump in the road? Not.
Their arguments seemed impressive and the isolated verses they used seemed to be pretty clear, and I have never been one to disregard an argument out-of-hand because it bears a different label. I researched, visited Charismatic churches, and read several books. By the time I drove an unequivocal stake three years later, I was not amused to find the doctrine wanting. Besides, we had lost several members to Robert Tilton’s 8,000 member “Word of Faith Family Church,” and at least one young couple who left our church lost everything they owned as a result of giving it all to Tilton’s ministry. When they appealed to Word of Faith for help, they were turned away. Eventually, “Primetime Live” did an expose on Tilton when a homeless shelter noticed an unusually high percentage of their recipients were former members at Word of Faith.
Then it happened. During an evening service at Word of Faith, two well known evangelicals arrived and spoke to the congregation about unity and gave the church their blessings. The two men were my contemporary heroes in the faith, WA Criswell (longtime pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas) and Bill Webber (former pastor of mega-church Prestonwood Baptist). I was devastated. How could this be? But there was still hope. I was a student at WA Criswell for Biblical Studies. Surely, I would arrive at school Monday morning and the outcry would be heard as I drove into the parking lot! Not.
I found myself thinking, “What does this all mean?” And, “Is God’s truth really that important?” “If the particulars of the faith aren’t that important, why did God write the whole Bible?” By the grace of God I got past it. I guess that’s one good thing about it all; if I was looking for an excuse not to persevere, there it was.
Apart from that, the beat goes on. Notable evangelicals continue to build years of trust among the laity, seemingly, if you didn’t know better, for the purpose of a grand disillusionment. However, with each one that contradicts their own supposed convictions they sold you in book form, the pain gives way to the sweetness of knowing that Christ will never let us down in that way. Still, it’s annoying, but I think I have been completely cured of taking this phenomenon too hard with the latest evangelical rock star to follow suit, John MacArthur Jr. First, he writes a book entitled “Charismatic Chaos,” then he invites CJ Mahaney to speak at a Shepard’s Conference at Grace Community Church. One blogger who couldn’t make it to the conference commented as follows: “To see Mahaney and the author of the book Charismatic Chaos sharing the same stage would have been interesting.” Interesting? What about, “sickening.” Moreover, this occurred in the same year that “The Truth War” was published, a book also written by MacArthur. In that book, he mercilessly berates postmodernism, but Mahaney was a stand-in for John Piper at the same conference who holds to beliefs eerily similar to postmodernism, and is a quintessential Christian mystic.
I wonder if many Christians are starting to think like I am. Enough already concerning the who’s who of evangelicalism, it’s becoming a sideshow anyway. All they do is write books, speak at conferences, and create a bunch of confusion. Certainly, they have lost touch with how doctrine effects real life in the trenches. This is difficult to comprehend because, in just this one example, the human misery caused by Charismatic Theology over the past forty years is well documented. Don’t they care? Apparently not. Doesn’t the finer points of God’s truth matter to them? Apparently not.
paul
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
1 comment