If Space Aliens Visited Westminster Seminary
I don’t know what’s wrong with me this morning. I sang to PJ and Phillip while taking them to school this morning: “Let the sunshine in, face it with a grin, frowner’s never win…….” Too much coffee or something. Then I guess I made the mistake of checking my FB wall before getting to work. One of my friends posted an item concerning an apparent, or possible paranormal event concerning the pale horse of the apocalypse. At first, my comment was serious:
“ Interesting. It could be paranormal – that does happen. But for Christians the question is always, “So what?” Or, Objective verses subjective. Like when lightning struck the giant image of Jesus here in Ohio: objective; God doesn’t like idols so He struck it with lightning. This [note] is more in the realm of subjective. Subjective paranormal events are sometimes a judgment because they are often a form of idol worship. People like idols because they can draw any truth they want from them; like the giant Jesus here in Ohio – it meant many different things to many different people. Likewise, people can draw all kinds of different “conclusions” from subjective paranormal activity. The apostle Paul said that in the end times God will send “delusions” as a judgment and Christ said they will be so deceptive that they could potentially deceive the elect “if that were possible.” I believe that as the time draws near we will see strong delusions, and Katie bar the door, if the likes of John Piper can fool people, one can only imagine the wholesale plunge into deeper error.”
Then something happened. You see, I have been in a cage while writing the second edition of “Another Gospel” because I made Susan the chief editor of the book. Her credentials for such a task are over the top, and it has been brutal: no sarcasm, no unprofessional statements, no unnecessary statements that don’t contribute to the main point, etc., etc., etc., and etc. Do you know what I mean? Do you hear me knocking? “No, this won’t work,” she says, “the blog is informal [my translation: fun!], this is serious business.” So, I made a second comment to the note on FB that was in jest – something about an end-time delusion concerning space aliens visiting Southern Theological Seminary and presenting a false gospel. Then I thought, “Hey, that would make a good post!”
But then I thought (Susan never lets me start a sentence with “but”), “It wouldn’t be fair to use Southern since they are primarily influenced by Westminster these days, so I will use Westminster for the imaginary scenario instead. So, imagine with me, the spaceship lands on the front lawn of Westminster Seminary, the aliens emerge, and say, “Take us to your leader.” Undoubtedly, since this would be a counseling situation, and even a possible alien abduction (I could only wish), they would summon profs from CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster. After listening to the new gospel presented by the aliens, one can only assume they would respond this way:
“No, no, we have a much better gospel than that. We believe in change at the ‘heart level.’ You see, we don’t need to evolve, the church has always had the truth, but then it forgot a bunch of stuff. We realized the church did so when we observed people who hate us developing theories of change based on an ‘inside life.’ Unfortunately, first generation versions of ourselves deny this ‘inside life’ because they are obsessed with what can be known objectively. It is important to overcome that because even though we have recovered truth forgotten by the church, ‘it’s different because it’s always in a different socio-cultural-historical movement, and different forces are at work’ ( see David Powlison interview with 9 Marks Blog). However, this shouldn’t bother our first generation friends because the Bible is not a book of objective truth anyway, it’s a gospel narrative.
Now, on Earth we have flowers called the daisy, and if you just cut down a daisy, it will grow back again because what you need to do is get to the roots and dig them up. Likewise, idols in the heart must be found and destroyed by deep repentance. When we do that, change is just a ‘mere natural flow’ via new obedience. Now, idols in our heart take our desires captive, so we locate the idols by asking ourselves x-ray questions, which will identify desires that have been disoriented / misplaced by the idols. This is very important because like Sigmund Freud, we believe ‘Everything we do is shaped and controlled by what our hearts desire’ (How People Change, p.17). Furthermore, we like to quote a great teacher of the past who said: ‘The heart is an idol factory.’ So, as our nasty hearts continue to create these idols, we must eradicate them by deep repentance.”
At this point, the aliens have a question: “So, your gospel is a gospel that teaches a constant cycle of new idols being created in the heart and the cutting down thereof ?” Answer: “Precisely! Because when we sin, it keeps us humble and prevents self righteousness. But when we obey, it’s not really us obeying; when the idol is eradicated, the void is filled by Christ and he obeys for us. So really, it’s a constant cycle of humbleness and rejoicing in what Jesus is doing, not anything we do. This is much better than the first generation of putting off the old self and putting on the full righteousness of Christ granted to us at salvation.”
Aliens: “But isn’t that what Ephesians 4:20-24 says to do? And isn’t it more objective than idol hunting?” Answer: “That’s first generation thinking. We thought you guys are supposed to be more highly evolved than us. The Bible is a gospel narrative, and ‘Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept we insert into a new formula for life’ (How People Change, p.27). The Bible is a big picture model / story of every believers life, and we are invited to enter into the plot ( How People Change p.94).”
Aliens: “Your concept: the Bible is personal truth embodied in a person [Christ] and expressed in a narrative; therefore, it cannot be applicable truth; isn’t that postmodernism? Another one of your earthly leaders says it is (John MacArthur, Truth War pages 12-14).” Answer: “Guilt by association! Are you guys really blogwatchers posing as aliens?!”
To conclude my narrative, one of the aliens keys his communicator and says the following: “Ground to command, beam us up, there’s no intelligent life down here.”
And once again, CCEF’s research and development team has saved planet Earth!
The end.
(Don’t tell Susan I wrote this).
paul
My Reply to Frank Turk’s Reply
Frank, Though I posted my note to you on my blog, your reply will be kept confidential unless you give permission otherwise. I found your reply gracious and with a spirit worth pondering. That's why I am going to share my heart with you on this in no uncertain terms. The reason is because I, at this time, do not share your patience with Horton, TT, DA Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller, et al. I believe they are fostering a doctrine that was conceived by the late Jack Miller (Prof of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary) some 30 years ago that was known as "Sonship Theology." Jay Adams wrote an apology against it (a book published by Timeless Texts in 1996). Though Horton and others have tweaked it to some extent, the doctrine is virtually identical to what they teach, and many of these men attribute the teaching to him directly (Jack Miller) while others were mentored by him. I also believe that these men think synergistic sanctification is a false gospel and that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, with their arrogance and visions of grandeur following. The doctrine is a radical departure from orthodoxy: repentance is now "deep repentance," obedience is now "new obedience," church discipline is now "redemptive church discipline," and progressive sanctification is really progressive justification. And unfortunately, as I am sure you already suspect, I have personal life experience with how this doctrine is effecting (trashing) the lives of many Christians. Its ill effect on biblical counseling is also cause for major concern. Sorry Frank, I think these men are dangerous and I think they need to be exposed. Perhaps they mean well, but the results are the same regardless. Thank you for your kind response and your prayer that God will be with me. Paul Dohse.
Frank Turk’s Reply to Open Email: Cited with Permission
Paul -- Thanks for your note. There is one specific way in which my concern does not lead to calling Dr. Horton & Co. "antinomians" or those who "foster antinomians": by understanding that my concern is with their approach and not their confession. I think the problem is with their approach to the question of justification having the necessary consequence of sanctification. I am familiar with, and a fan of, Dr. Horton's books about the Gospel and about orthodoxy. I look forward to reading his new Systematic Theology. My concern is that when the WHI conducts discussions about the centrality of the Gospel and fails to close the discussion as Paul -always- did by disclaiming antinomianism and fruitlessness (Paul's approach was always to declare the centrality of the Gospel as the /cause/ of fruitfulness, with no excuse to the fruitless), their approach is flawed. In that, I think it also goes back to their intention to reform the church with the Gospel. They want to vanquish works-righteousness -- which is entirely right-minded. But if you eliminate the possibility of works-righteousness but /excuse fruitlessness as merely "unhealthy"/, you are not finishing the job. That's not defective theology: that's defective effort, a defective teaching method. It is unequivocal confessional language to say that those who are born again, those who are receivers of the Gospel, those who believe, must experience sanctification (-not- perfection)(cf. WCF XIII.1). To say -that- is a kind of works righteousness is to say that the reformed confessions advocate such a thing -- which I am certain you would never do. To the other quotes you have proffered here, I am not seeking to defend anyone else's statements in or out of context. I stand by my critique, and ask you to address it as I have presented it if I have not answered your concerns about it. God be with you, ~Frank
An Open Email to Frank Turk
Frank,
I saw your latest comment on WHI. You invited anybody that had questions to email you at this address frank@iturk.com. I may have misunderstood what you wrote in the comment, but it seems that you see the controversy at hand this way: “This is not a dire theological emergency.” Not that I think your original open letter was a definitive antinomian charge, as Horton apparently did, but I will ask the following question: how is progressive justification not antinomianism? How can there be any use of the law at all in sanctification if “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us”? Many respected teachers of the past such as JC Ryle called the combining of justification and sanctification antinomianism. I believe antinomianism is a “theological emergency.”
That’s my question, now perhaps you will allow me a comment concerning this statement: “As the person now listed as probably worse than Torquemada when it comes to the Reformed blogsophere….” That might be because of the following: the logical conclusion of their theology, if not directly stated, would question your salvation. Certainly, they would be offended by some lost guy calling their theology into question!
Let’s see if that might be the case. When you got saved, did you remain in the gospel, or did you move on to “something else”? What’s the “something else”? Tullian Tchividjian says the something else is the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it.”
So, the something else can be ANYTHING else but the gospel, which in this case is “deeper theological waters” as opposed to “move[ing] deeper into it” [the gospel]. If you do that (move on to something else), Michael Horton says you loose your sanctification AND your justification. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we loose our justification, doesn’t that mean we’re lost? Here is what he said:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always depen- dent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Also, John Piper says that we (Christians) must make our battle (“our battle” must certainly pertain to sanctification) to only believe, not to perform as grounds for our justification (I thought we perform to please God and our justification is already settled, but I guess that’s just me). Here is what he said:
“All the good that God requires of the justified is the fruit of justification by faith alone, never the ground of justification. Let the battle of your life be there. The battle to believe. Not the battle to perform.”
Is that true? Is our only battle as Christians, a battle to believe?
Nevertheless, if you move deeper into the gospel everyday and haven’t moved on to anything else – your in good standing with the guys at WHI. And saved to boot!
paul
Why Stuff Happens at Church
I am often inspired to write articles as a result of conversations with Susan. She was sharing with me about an event that happened at a church she attended several years ago. The pastor, after getting word that he would be taking a one-way flight back to home base in the near future, announced to the congregation that God “told him” that He (God) wanted his son (the pastor’s son) to replace him as pastor at said church. Who would ever argue with God? And who could say that God didn’t tell him that? Therefore, I guess the coronation then commenced posthaste. How does stuff like this happen at church?
You understand if your a doctrine hound like myself because you see the indifference, and in many cases, outright disdain for doctrine among God’s people; “Oh, don’t talk to him, you may say something ‘theologically incorrect’”(snort, snort). But here is what many don’t understand: everybody on earth lives by a doctrine. Everybody that breaths. Atheism, for example, is a doctrine. Secondly, doctrine determines how you live; always, absolutely no exception. For instance, Nihilism is the “doctrine of nothing.” But yet, this was the doctrine embraced by the young man who recently tried to assassinate a US senator while murdering nine others. The same doctrine is also embraced by a contemporary heavy metal band and is the inspiration for much of the music they have written. However, Christian Nihilism generally takes on a softer tone except when confronted by Christian doctrines of various sorts, especially those that take effort to understand.
So, everybody lives by a doctrine, and it determines how we live; and thirdly, doctrine is the system in which we organize our thinking about law. It’s ironic: lack of doctrine in the church has led many Christians to think; “law bad – grace good.” But mankind simply doesn’t exist without laws. A law is a rule or guideline that we simply cannot function without. You can’t do anything without a guideline. Try playing a violin without following learned guidelines; it’s not going to sound good. Anybody want to go on a trip with the rest of humanity driving other cars without traffic laws? Not me. Moreover, humanity lives by one, or the other: God’s law (wisdom), or all other laws. Doctrine determines how that is organized and applied. But yet, it’s not important? Perplexing.
However, worse yet, without doctrine, many can be fooled into thinking that you can except the grace of God without accepting or embracing God’s law as opposed to all the other ones, especially the ones we makeup for ourselves. In fact, many believe today that the way to salvation is a rejection of God’s law because it is opposed to grace! Somehow, they think that we can “have life, and have it more abundantly” by following other guidelines besides those established by God! Hence, many will buy into the notion that God established His law as an antithetical teacher for purposes of understanding grace better. Buyer beware.
And as a result of doctrinal neglect, people are misled in varying degrees; ie., from God supposedly telling us through a leader to make someone a pastor, to God supposedly telling us through a leader to drink some really bad kool-aid. Either can be avoided by attention to doctrine. So, in respect to Susan’s example, and the most unfortunate extreme thereof, what doctrine can be observed? Answer: Anthropology, the doctrine of man. Here’s what it will teach you. First, God is a person (the doctrine of Theology Proper) who speaks to us from outside of us like any other person, and that through His word (doctrine of Bibliology). He speaks to us and the Holy Spirit gives us understanding (Pneumatology). Therefore, God doesn’t speak to us from inside of ourselves, he speaks to us from the outside by His word: “Faith comes by hearing the word of God” (Romans 10:17). All of the voices inside of our head are our own, and hopefully formed by the word of God (sanctification which is under Soteriology, the doctrine of salvation). I know, it seems like a lot, but we expect math to be difficult – this is about life!
We don’t have our voices and God’s voice both speaking in our heads, with an endeavor to sort out who’s saying what following. All of the voices in our head are our own, and again, hopefully formed in right thinking by the mind of Christ. Therefore, “God told me,” “God called me,” etc., etc., is just not true. We have been conditioned to accept these sound bites all of our Christian lives and therefore, when someone tells us that God told them to tell us to drink the kool-aid, we drink. And worse yet, because we are doctrinally illiterate, when someone tells us grace is opposed to law, we believe that also. Hence, when you learn doctrine and use it to love people, get ready for the following: “All I said was that God spoke to me in a small, still voice. I can’t say anything to you because your a jerk, your just a walking encyclopedia of fifty-cent theological words. You can hang it on your beak buddy.”
One thing I have noticed is that many Christians I speak to in our day do not possess a working understanding of justification, sanctification, and glorification. Unfortunately, if you don’t understand those terms, which by the way are definitive biblical terms (1Cor 1:30 and 6:11), you cannot gain a sufficient understanding of Scripture, especially in the area of apologetics (defense of the truth, which all Christians are called to partake in, see Jude 3). If that’s you, your just buying into everything you hear at church; you have no other alternative. You will simply believe everything the pastor said that God supposedly told him. And by the way, in regard to staving off that bitter cyanide after-taste, what does he say is better, cherry, or strawberry?
paul
leave a comment