“< Tweet, Tweet
@Jerry_Wragg Ref. 2014 Shep. Conf. diss Tullian all want you BOTH teach progressive Justification. Tullian has Calvin right to a T = CI 3.14
2014 “Shepherds” Conference: Jerry Wragg Calms the Herd in Regard to Sanctification; Part 1
I was recently made aware of the astounding title of Jerry Wragg’s seminar at the 2014 “Shepherds” Conference: “The New Antinomianism, Evaluating the Implications of Cross-centered Sanctification.” I posted some preliminary thoughts on the title a few days ago, and I am waiting for the mp3 to be posted in the 2014 archives. The mp3 will be transcribed and evaluated in part 3.
It’s just a title, so what’s the big deal? The title is indicative of the unavoidable; more and more, Reformed cronies are going to have to explain away the severe problems with authentic Reformed soteriology. The crux of the problem can be seen in Wragg’s title and characteristic of what the seminar MO will have to be, viz, a lot of tiptoeing around the gators. Wragg couldn’t title the seminar, “The New Antinomianism, Evaluating the Implications of Sanctification by Justification” because as a Calvinist that’s what he believes.
As God’s people get up to speed on the subject of law/gospel, Calvinism will be progressively exposed for the rank heresy that it is. For now, Calvinist lackeys like Wragg continue to employ various and sundry deceptive communication techniques. Their favorite technique is to portend that a singular idea is something different when they don’t want to be rightly identified with the singular idea. This is done by using synonyms of words that identify the main idea, and then associating the synonyms with different ideas that they supposedly disagree with.
Example: In part 2, I will be evaluating Wragg’s 2013 seminar that was on the same subject; A Biblical Response to Current Forms of Free Grace Theology. In that seminar, he affirms the well-traveled justification is the ground of our sanctification. But yet, the 2014 title implies that he is against Christ-centered sanctification. This is affirmed by the corpus of his 2013 message as well; i.e., “Gospel Sanctification” is errant. But it is the exact same thing as justification being the ground of our sanctification or “sanctification is grounded in justification.” Do you see what he has done? “Christ” has been exchanged for “justification,” and “centered” has been exchanged for “grounded.” They also exchange “justification” for “grace” in order to blur distinctions between justification and sanctification.
So, one idea is identified with multiple synonyms, and then they make the synonyms different ideas. This enables them to call something error while continuing to teach the same as truth. Another example is “justification and sanctification are never separate, but distinct.” This is a staple mantra among the Reformed. They actually say it with a straight face. It enables them to suggest that justification and sanctification are separate while making applications that imply the two are the same thing…while saying they are different.
As I deconstruct Wragg’s 2013 and 2014 seminars in parts 2 and 3, I will clearly demonstrate that Calvin held to the same Gospel Sanctification that Wragg criticizes. I will use several citations from the Calvin Institutes. The Neo-Calvinist movement has Calvinism right despite ignorant protestations from the likes of Wragg and John MacArthur. Wragg, in the 2013 seminar, criticizes the idea that sanctification is a “rest.” John Calvin and his view of the Scriptures will be a main focus of the 2015 Shepherds conference; therefore, Wragg should get on board with Calvin as far as sanctification being a “Sabbath rest” in which Christians will die a spiritual death if they work. Calvin’s Sabbath rest theology will be cited numerous times in parts 2 and 3.
Sooner or later, the theological math is going to catch up with these charlatans. This is probably one of the reasons authentic Calvinism, which fuses justification and sanctification together, dies a social death every 100 years or thereabouts.
Meanwhile, as inquiring Christians want to know, the herd will have to be continually calmed by Reformed doublespeak, and apparently, that’s Wragg’s role among the theological felons of our day.
paul
Addendum:
In addition, in Wragg’s 2013 seminar he touts the Reformed the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event. This teaches that all obedience in the Christian life flows from justification (which is a finished work while sanctification is progressive). See how they change the word “justification” for “indicative” to nuance the point? I will be discussing the question, “What powers our obedience in sanctification, the new birth or justification?” We will see how the Reformers redefined the new birth as a realm and attributed the fruit of sanctification to justification through the “vital union.”
2014 “Shepherds” Conference: Speaker Jerry Wragg Leads Conference in Either Deliberate Deception or Confusion
Laptops are wonderful. I have been running PPT while doing some major remolding on my mother’s house. I have been watching the comments on a couple of recent posts that have stirred a lot of discussion in regard to law and gospel. If it takes a while for your comment to be moderated, I am probably soldering a water pipe. I have little time right now to jump into the fray, but what a delight to see the laity emboldened to engage this topic. The posts are in relationship to TANC’s latest realization regarding the Reformed view of atonement. I am astounded in regard to the simplicity of the crux: did Christ merely cover our sins, or did He END sin?
Obviously, according to Calvin, Christ died to merely cover sin. We have established firmly that total depravity also pertains to the saints in Reformed thought. Reformed soteriology changes the experience, not the person. This is the official Reformed doctrine of mortification and vivification. Also obvious is the idea that covering goes hand in hand with the idea that Christians are not changed in their personal righteousness. If our sins are ended, a completely different soteriology is demanded. This Sunday, I will be further supplementing our Romans series with another look at atonement, and be sure of this, John 1:29 will be mentioned:
The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!”
What of this? Did Christ take our sin away, or did He merely cover it? Is our “just standing” merely a realm change with the same relationship to the law, or does salvation change our relationship to the law? I am awaiting a transcript of David Platt’s view of atonement that I will implement in clarifying this position.
This now brings me to the subject at hand. A brother who I have not talked to for some time sent me a tidbit of information about the 2014 “Shepherds” Conference held annually at John MacArthur’s church. Yes, the quotation marks are of the scare variety. Before I get into the tidbit, he reminds me of a longstanding reality in the institutional church. Brothers and sisters who can think for themselves are always going to be deemed a threat in the institutional church. I don’t know of his present church status, but what a joy to see the Home Fellowship movement setting brothers like him free to practice their gifts.
He reminds me very much of Andy Young who is now free to bless people with his gift of teaching, but like Andy, the gift doesn’t match the recognition and opportunity that takes place in the brick and mortar church. Seminaries are where you go to get your Reformed pedigree and certificate that confirms that you will toe the Reformed line. You pay money to get your certificate, then you can get a job as a philosopher king—that’s how the system works. Conferences reinforce the system, and the laity unwittingly pays for it. It is a sanctified caste system like no other.
Now for the tidbit. He informed me that one of the speakers, a Jerry Wragg, delivered a message at the conference entitled, “The New Antinomianism: Evaluating the Implications of Cross-centered Sanctification.” Ok, we understand that there is a bunch of confusion at The Masters’ Seminary, but is this just more confusion, or outright deception? For the most part, Christians intuitively believe that sanctification is synergistic while justification is monergistic. Even if you believe you have a choice, obviously, God alone made a way to be saved. Let me suggest that if our sins are only covered, soteriology becomes very deep and we need the philosopher kings; if our sins are ENDED—not so much.
At any rate, the herd of heretics in these last days are well aware of the intuition, and therefore merely emphasize justification resulting in the out-of-sight-out-of-mind result of “justification by faith alone” which is really sanctification by faith alone as well. James sternly warned the church against this heresy. But every now and then, this herd of supposed stalwarts of the faith that the apostles predicted would be absent in the last days to begin with, sense that the totally depraved zombie sheep are catching on and it is time for a little doublespeak.
I read the title of the message to Susan, and as she looked at me dumbfounded, I asked, “So, do you think this is confusion, or deception?” Her reply: “deception.” Perhaps, but as I have stated before, I believe many of this year’s speakers at TSC 2014 are the premier heretics of our day who are leading untold thousands to hell, in fact, I doubt hell ever looked better while MacArthur is just plain confused. An example is the maintaining of his dispensational eschatology along with his Reformed soteriology. Antinomianism usually walks hand in hand with one judgment and covering, while the former is consistent with multiple judgments for different purposes and the ending of sin resulting in new creaturehood that is personal and not realm related. It is a righteousness that is personal, not merely an imputed experience.
So, will a review of this message, when it is posted, reveal a sound interpretation of sanctification; ie., Mac-like confusion, or has this speaker been called on to calm the herd with Reformed doublespeak?
Let me close with why the title of his message is spot-on. Antinomianism, an actual biblical word as opposed to Phil Johnson’s favorite unbiblical concept of “legalism,” is both good and bad. Anti-law in justification is good while anti-law in sanctification suggests that we are still “under law” and need a continued “covering.” If our sin is still judged by the law, we need perpetual justification. And if we need a perpetual, “covering” by the blood, that obviously suggests a perpetual return to the cross; ie., “cross-centered” sanctification.
Well, humans are created to work and think both. That’s why space aliens have skinny little bodies and big heads; they create reality in a realm by thinking about stuff, you know, like Phil Johnson’s gospel contemplationism. But reality is tricky when you are created to work: how do we work to please God without it going towards our justification? See, that makes things really tricky; that’s why you need them, and that’s why they have conferences…
…if they didn’t continually remind you of that, they would have to get a real job. And besides, you pay for the reminder.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment