The Gospel-Driven Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification Equals “Without the Law”
The following is my reply to a discussion with a blogger and regards the title of this post. The subject of the other post (not mine) was “repenting of good works.” I do not care to mention his name at this time (update: it was Tim Keller), but thought my reply in the comment section of the blog site was complete enough to turn into a post:
….So let me be respectful, but blunt: I believe you, Paul Tripp, John Piper, and Michael Horton are on an endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification into a plenary monergism. This is indicative of your statement above where you talk of justification and sanctification as if they are the same in regard to application of grace and our role accordingly. I will get to the “so what” conclusion of this later.
Paul Tripp clearly holds to this complete synthesis as illustrated on pages 64 and 65 of “How People Change,” where he describes our condition as believers in the same way as pre-salvation. Per the mode of operation that is becoming more and more prevalent in this endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification, he uses Colossians 1:21 as Scripture that is a present reality for believers, when it clearly refers to our unregenerate state before salvation. Likewise, John Piper does the same thing in one of his ebooks entitled “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial”:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17)”.
Note that he cites Romans 6:17 in regard to why we struggle as Christians presently; Romans 6:17 is clearly a verse that concerns the unregenerate, and he even states that we are still “enslaved” as believers. I disagree.
Michael Horton’s contribution to this endeavor is stated by him in “Christless Christianity” on page 62:
“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 dependent 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.”
1. We only find continued life as believers when we partake in the same gospel that gives life to the unregenerate. This is what he is clearly saying.
2. If we move on to anything else, we loose both; in other words, synergistic sanctification is a false gospel because it separates practical aspects of justification and sanctification, which are both supposedly defined by the gospel that saves us. This is what he is clearly saying. Hence, the new reformation that is supposedly on a mission from God to save the evangelical church.
I often get flack from those who say Michael Horton is a sound advocate of biblical obedience to the Law by believers. But in fact, this is not true. Horton believes that the Law serves the same purpose for believers and unbelievers alike. In Modern Reformation, “Creeds And Deeds: How Doctrine leads to Doxological Living,” he says the following:
“Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? But then he goes on to say the following:
“The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior….”
In other words, the purpose of the Law is to drive Christians to despair when they try to keep it, and thereby causing them to embrace the Savior who is really the one upholding the law for us (indicatives). If you read the whole paragraph in context, he is saying that the purpose of the Law in the life of believers is to create a perpetual state of guilt in order to keep us dependent on the cross and the righteousness of Christ only. Again, and for all practical purposes, he is saying that the Law has the exact same relationship, and purpose, to unbelievers and believers alike. Additionally, this viewpoint concerning the Law would be efficacious to the synthesizing of justification and sanctification as well.
So, it therefore stands to reason, that your primary focus in sanctification would be the same primary focus of unbelievers (justification) as well for purposes of salvation; repentance. Because your doctrine, by definition, is narrow and limited to repentance, this aspect must be greatly embellished and expanded; hence, all kinds of introspective theories concerning idols of the heart and the need to repent of repenting (or repenting of good works).
Well then, other than the fact that none of this stands the test of Scripture; so what? Here is the “so what?”: the complete synthesizing of justification and sanctification together leads to “without the Law” (most often in the Bible: “lawlessness“) in sanctification. We also refer to this as Antinomianism. Why would Christians even attempt to uphold the Law when we are no more able to do so than unbelievers (supposedly)? Again, Horton’s position on this is absolutely clear (I again point to page 62 of Christless Christianity). So then, are we to relish in our inability to uphold the Law of God? To the contrary, the Bible is saturated with verses that promise happiness and joy through our obedience.
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,”
I find her statement eerily parallel to that of many “gospel-driven” proponents in regard to their perspective on the Law. Though I know you and others would never condone her behavior, I still find the parallels disquieting. If you care to respond, please don’t cite Reformers or Creeds, I am really looking for a solid biblical argument that I have this all wrong. And really, I hope I do.
Blessings,
Paul Dohse
John Piper’s Antinomian Message at the 2010 T4G Conference
“Notice also, and this is absolutely key, that we are not to meditate on what Jesus ‘says’ (ie., imperatives), but rather ‘pictures’ of Jesus. And of course, if these ‘pictures’ are central to our narrow role in sanctification, they must also be ‘inexhaustible.’”
I haven’t done much research on the T4G coalition (“Together for the Gospel”), but it is fairly apparent that it is another conduit piping in more neo-Reformed garbage into the SBC. This steady flow of poison is already causing Southern Baptist leaders to act even more goofy than we already are, bringing people up on unbiblical church discipline for nonattendance and creepy midweek Bible studies that are confined to members and closed to outsiders. My guess is that this is in regard to not wanting outsiders to raise red flags in regard to the covert, hideous, antinomian doctrine called Gospel Sanctification.
My suspicions are raised by the T4G’s infatuation with the antinomian, but lovable, John Piper, who is a proponent of the GS doctrine. As I read his message to the 2010 T4G, I couldn’t help but to wonder if anybody at all had puzzled looks on their faces. His message started with his usual display of confusion and nebulism. The message was entitled “Did Jesus Preach the Gospel of Evangelicalism?”
But then he didn’t even answer the question in his message. Not only that, here is what he said in his introduction: “If I had it to do over again, I would use the title ‘Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?'” But even though he said “if”, he in fact did focus on the latter topic, admitting that the title never did fit the topic in two-fold fashion. More than likely, this was an awkward, failed attempt to accuse Evangelicalism at large of preaching a false gospel without saying it directly.
And no John Piper message would be complete without brazen doublespeak, even as his listeners fawn with admiration. In the first part of the message he advocates the Historical Grammatical method of interpretation: “ If, by means of historical and grammatical effort, accompanied with the Spirit’s illumination of what is really there, you understand the accounts of the four Gospels as they stand, you will know the Jesus who really was and what he taught.” But in a following statement (same message), he says the following:
“Every verse of all four Gospels is meant by the authors to be read in the shadow of the cross. When we start reading one of the Gospels, we already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus as a substitute for our sins (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28)—and we should have that ending in mind with every verse that we read. And this is exactly what each of the Gospels intends.”
This statement can only be born-out by a Historical Redemptive interpretation, and in direct contradiction to his earlier statement. But notice the slick twisting of words in his second statement:
“Every verse of all four Gospels is meant by the authors to be read in the shadow of the cross.”
Really, who can argue with that? In essence, these books do stand in the “shadow” of the cross; again, who would argue with that? But after he feeds you that little bite, he closes the deal in your brain with the belief that every verse in these books are about redemption only:
“When we start reading one of the Gospels, we already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus as a substitute for our sins (Mark 10:45; Matthew 26:28)—and we should have that ending in mind with every verse that we read. And this is exactly what each of the Gospels intends.”
And by the way, since when does the ending of a book determine the meaning of every verse in the same book? Where did he find that hermeneutic?
I say all of the above to make the following point: The Redemptive Historical hermeneutic necessarily goes hand in hand with Gospel Sanctification, which vanquishes any distinction between justification and sanctification; the same monergistic gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you (hence, “Gospel Sanctification”). The gospel-centered hermeneutic (RHH) makes that assessment possible. Therefore, the Bible can have no imperative purpose in sanctification because there was not any imperative possibility in justification either. The natural result of this is antinomianism because the Law cannot be upheld in sanctification any more than it can be in justification. In fact, Piper, like Micheal Horton and many others, consider the belief that Christians are able to participate in upholding God’s law a false gospel.
So, what does Piper propose that Christians do? Well, it’s right in the message from the T4G:
“First, a word about method. One of my goals in this message is to fire you up for serious lifelong meditation on the four Gospels as they stand. I am so jealous that you not get sidetracked into peeling away the so-called layers of tradition to find the so-called historical Jesus. I want you to feel the truth and depth and wonder that awaits your lifelong labor of love in pondering the inexhaustible portraits of Jesus given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”
The word “meditation” is not used by accident. Piper believes that we are transformed (sanctification) by a meditation on the gospel (the same gospel that saved us), or what he calls “becoming by beholding.” Also, Christ is absolutely synonymous with the gospel narrative its self, or as he puts it “God is the Gospel.” So, “Christ” and “gospel” are used interchangeably. Notice also, and this is absolutely key, that we are not to meditate on what Jesus “says” (ie., imperatives), but rather “pictures” of Jesus. And of course, if these “pictures” are central to our narrow role in sanctification, they must also be “ inexhaustible.”
Piper continues to build on this same point by saying:
“If you interpret faithfully the deeds and the words of Jesus as he is portrayed in the four Gospels, your portrait of Jesus will be historically and theologically more in accord with who he really was and what he really did than all the varied portraits of all the critical scholars who attempt to reconstruct a Jesus of history behind the Gospels.”
Notice again that our supposed goal is to achieve a “portrait ” of Jesus rather than an attempt to ascertain what he wants us to do as a church. We are also to faithfully interpret His deeds and “words.” Here, His (Christ) “commands” are replaced with His “words” where commands could have been referred to. Also, Piper continued to avoid any reference to the Lordship of Christ or imperatives spoken by Him in the following statement as well:
“If you believe that, what a lifelong challenge and treasure lies before you! To meditate day and night on the four Gospels with a view to knowing your Lord Jesus with ever-deepening understanding, and ever-deepening love, and ever-deepening fellowship. I really believe that the ultimate reason God gave us four portraits of Jesus in the four Gospels is so that we would more fully and accurately see and savor the glories of the Savior that we meet personally in the gospel, and that we would enjoy fellowship with him in this life, as we know him personally from what he did and said in his days on earth.”
Again, Piper propagates the idea that our understanding of Jesus, our love of Jesus, and our fellowship with Jesus, comes through meditation alone. In addition, as in the above quote and throughout his message, Christ is only referred to as Savior, and any references to kingly commands are avoided like the Bubonic Plague. An example of this is also in the above quote were he refers to what Jesus “did and said” while on earth. Throughout this message delivered at the T4G conference, he states that meditation upon portraits of Christ (the gospel) is the crux of spiritual growth. Now with that in mind, consider Christ’s mandate to the church in Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
First of all, let’s back-up a little. Piper argues in his message that every verse in the Gospels is about the cross because all four end with the death, burial, and resurrection. This is clearly not so. Matthew and Mark end with Christ proclaiming His lordship ( “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”) and the mandate to make disciples by teaching them to observe all that he had “commanded.” Christ never instructed the church to obtain “deep fellowship” with Him by meditating on “pictures” of Him from the Gospels. In effect, Piper clearly preached a half-gospel at the T4G conference, presenting Christ as Savior only, and I would be willing to bet that no one even blinked.
Lastly, per the usual, Piper is difficult to expose concerning his belief in monergistic sanctification. While his message was supposedly focused justification, he makes the following statement in the same message:
“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? Should Christians focus solely on belief only? Isn’t there ever a “battle to perform”? According to Piper, and what can be clearly gleaned from this statement, no. Notice how sanctification is not mentioned in regard to what we should be doing now, or a “battle” to please God with our lives. Regardless of the fact that he is speaking in the present tense, he only qualifies the “battle to perform” in regard to justification. He says that everything God requires flows from the fruits of justification, and then we should only “battle to believe,” not battle to perform. Read the statement very carefully as you must with this master word-crafter; if you make a battle to perform one of your battles as a Christian, you are also making that the grounds of your justification!
The bottom line is this: Piper’s message to the T4G conference was nothing more than the half-gospel of Jesus as savior only and not lord; for where the Law cannot function, there can be no Lord, for what is He to be loved with? It was the gospel that presents the Father and Holy Spirit as inferior to Jesus Christ, for it claims that every verse in the Bible is about Him only. It was an antinomian gospel. It was a monergistic sanctification gospel. It was the gospel of Christian meditation. It was the gospel of what Jesus looks like rather than what he SAYS.
And at a conference supposedly standing for the gospel. And no one blinks. Hail to the almighty John Piper.
paul
When Sarcasm Becomes Reality: Horton’s Call for Potted Plants to Report to the Grow Center
I have written many times on the new easy believism sweeping through reformed groups. The *gospel* is now a mystical narrative that we merely sit under in all its various forms at any given time; we are then automatically transformed from “glory to glory,” a “beholding as a way of becoming.” Oh, and by the way, every verse in the Bible is about the gospel. Yes indeed, it is like the grow-lamp that me and my bros formally used to make our pot grow. You are the plant, and the Bible is the light; groovy dude. But what about those commands God talks about that don’t seem to include gospel subject matter? Well, that’s supposedly due to the fact that “God is the Gospel.” Amen, pass the bong dude, and somebody turn out that hall light, it’s taking away from the strobes and the lava lights.
Here is how I sarcastically stated it in another post: “You can also greatly enhance change in your life by showing up at the “glory center” every time the doors are open and thereby putting yourself under the glorious light of the gospel that passively effects your life like sunlight causes flowers to grow.” Well, here we go again, sarcasm becomes reality as the *gospel driven life* movement becomes wackier with each passing day. The Gospel Four: Horton, Tripp, Powlison, and Piper, are always busy with the next concoction that will save God’s people from the former days of wilderness wondering under the heavy hand of the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). Micheal Horton’s latest book, “Christless Christianity,” puts forth the whole grow-light idea in regard to corporate worship on pages 189-191:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
We see five elements of the wacky world of *gospel sanctification * in this excerpt. First, this whole concept of born again Christians still being dead, and in need of daily salvation via the gospel that saved us: “The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.” Christians today have come to like this whole idea that we are still spiritually dead. Why? Well, “when you are dead, you can do nothing.” Translation: we don’t have to do anything but gaze upon the gospel narrative; after that, whatever happens, happens. If we do something good, the Spirit did it, not us. And if we sin, hey, what do you expect from dead people? Sweet, no fault Christianity, if Christ didn’t make me do it, it’s not my fault.
Secondly, the sole purpose of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is to sweep “sinners” into the “unfolding drama”: “The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama.“ Forget about the Scriptures being profitable for “reproof, instruction, correction,” etc., Horton’s view of Scripture is here evident.
Thirdly, like Catholicism, interpretation of the Scriptures is best left to the experts and not the laity. Finding and making every verse in the Bible a “gospel narrative” is deep business indeed. So the news gets even better; you don’t have to labor in the word on your own: “Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace.” In other words, real preaching is 100% vertical and has no instruction. It is totally grace oriented, and we are “simply receivers.” Anything that is more than the *gospel* alone in preaching is someones “agenda.”
Fourthly, our role in the corporate assembly is strictly passive. We are there to be served by God via the gospel alone: “As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
Lastly, We are also passive participants in the church ordinances, which also impart grace to the passive participant. This actually smacks of a transubstantiation like view of the ordinances: “Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven.”
Furthermore, Horton then gives a contrast to the above concerning corporate worship:
“In this scenario, the people assume that they come to church primarily to do something. The emphasis is on their work for God. The preaching concentrates on principles and steps to living a better life, with a constant stream of exhortations: Be more committed. Read your Bible more. Pray more. Witness more. Give more. Get involved in this cause or that movement to save the world… Many of us were raised in conservative evangelical contexts in which preaching was chiefly an exhortation to do more, baptism was our act of commitment rather than God’s, the Lord’s Supper was a means of our remembering rather than a means of God’s grace, and many of the songs were expressions of our piety more than a recounting of God’s marvelous mercies in the history of redemption. The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.”
In closing, I am not going to address Horton’s exaggerations and numerous straw man arguments in his second scenario. But note how he makes no distinction between the lost and saved: “God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” His glaring contradictions to the plain sense of Scripture should be abundantly obvious. The book of James, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Hebrews, are replete with instructions concerning corporate gathering and worship. Horton chides believers for doing the very thing that Christ commands us to do in regard to the Lord’s table: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we gather together to “encourage each other unto good works” should apparently know better than to try personal interpretation of the Bible at home.
paul
1 Kings 8:39: Heart Theology Is Not The Real Reformation
“Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, ……..We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God.”
It happened in the early 90’s. I was in the process of absorbing and applying truth from what I think was in fact a contemporary reformation. There is no doubt, Christianity had relinquished its faith and confidence in God’s word; specifically, in regard to solving the weightier issues of life and godliness, deferring to the so-called “experts” of our day. Jay Adams, a reformed Presbyterian, introduced a structured biblical counseling system that radically changed lives through the power and instruction of God’s word. His thesis, after it was all said and done, and in a manner of speaking, begged this question by children: “Daddy, what did Christians do about serious problems before Sigmund Freud came along?” Surprisingly, and before evangelicals barely had a chance to catch their breath, something else came along, Heart Theology. Picking up again where my opening sentence left off, the following is how I was first introduced to Heart Theology. I was an elder in a church that was a training center for what was dubbed “biblical counseling.” The elder that was primarily leading this program was also in the process of obtaining his doctorate degree from another counseling center attached to a reformed seminary. This is where he was introduced to this new counseling theology. It was added as a level 2 program, or addendum to what was already considered radical among evangelicals; namely, the concept that God’s word is sufficient for all matters of life and godliness. I was skeptical in regard to this new twist. Let me explain the basic differences in the two approaches that fueled my skepticism.
First, in regard to the original biblical counseling movement, there are two basic characteristics of biblical counseling as originally introduced by Adams. First, it changed preaching, which was predominately, and still is to a large degree, “about” the Bible. For instance, there may have been many sermons “about” the importance of communication from the Bible. For example, instances where men misunderstood God and gee whiz, bad things happened after that, so don’t do what they did. Biblical counseling went beyond that to a deeper and technical understanding that was applied to real life situations. An example would be biblical precepts of communication that could readily be brought to mind in everyday life and applied accordingly. It was and is, technical wisdom from the word of God and specific instruction on how to apply it to real life. Once pastors learned to do this in the privacy of their office, it transferred to the pulpit where it became preventative medicine for God’s people. Yet another example. Say a young couple in your church decides to marry. What usually happens? We rejoice and marry them! Right? The Jay Adams approach would ask three questions: are these two young people experts on marriage? Probably not. Does God’s word have any wisdom that will prepare them for successful marriage that honors God? Of course. So should we just let them figure it out on their own? Probably not. This introduced Premarital Counseling in the church, with many pastors making it a prerequisite to that church’s participation in the wedding.
The other characteristic was an equal emphasis on justification and sanctification. Let’s be honest, the primary focus of evangelicals is getting people saved. Once there saved, we teach them the importance of church attendance, tithing, and learning about the Bible. Christ never told us to primarily get people saved; his mandate for the church is to “make disciples.” This is done by counseling with God’s word. Premarital Counseling, like many other aspects of biblical application, is “making disciples.” Preaching from the pulpit should also keep parishioners out of the counseling office as well as divorce court. The contention by Adams that pastors are to primarily counsel and not preach was indeed a shocker to many. Preaching should always contain counsel in regard to the technical application of God’s word to real life.
But in addition to these characteristics, one of the primary elements of this biblical counseling was its emphasis on objectivity. Jay Adams was, and I assume still is, a stickler for objective instruction rather than what was referred to as “fuzzy land.” However, I must concede this one weakness in the contemporary (about 37 years old) biblical counseling movement; there was a lack of emphasis on the monergistic resources that give us the strength to apply God’s wisdom to everyday life. But this is understandable, for Evangelicals were preaching about the forest in habitual fashion. The gargantuan task of showing the importance of the individual trees and their proper application was bound to distract. So, in regard to the biblical counseling movement, I have explained two characteristics, one element, and one fault.
Strange, In the midst of this revolution that was pouring out hope, seemingly without measure, there was another movement afoot that had a compliant against the former and the new; namely, biblical counseling wasn’t vertical enough, Adams had simply refined the emphasis on the outward and made Baptist Pharisees into super Pharisees. Yes, the new reformation (Adams) was bringing about lots of change, but it wasn’t “lasting change.” Their answer?; they contended that Christians must abandon all emphasis on outward behavior and partake in emphasizing change at the “heart level.” That would be the two elements of the Heart Theology movement: change at the heart level, and real, lasting change (theoretically).
So, what does that look like (not “how,” which might imply some kind of verb to follow)? Well, the key is deciphering the “desires of the heart.” Desires reveal the idols in our heart, or anything that we love more than God (supposedly, according to advocates). So, what does that look like? Well, we analyze desires of the heart three ways. First, by how we respond to circumstances. Second, by asking God to reveal the Idols through prayer. Thirdly, by imagining future scenarios and taking note of how it makes us feel. The second means is direct, God simply reveals it to us directly through prayer. The first and third means require the use of interpretive questions. So for instance, you are watching a football game and your wife demands that you take the trash out “right now!” And this in fact makes you angry. The most common interpretive question is “what did you want?” The answer is the following: you wanted to be left alone to enjoy the game and you wanted to be shown more respect by your wife. There you have it; football and being respected are idols in your heart. If you now repent of these idols, they are emptied from your heart and God then fills that void in your heart with himself. To the extent that your heart has idols, God is not present. Depending on the presence and filling of God verses idols, obedience is a “mere natural flow” that doesn’t require effort (works) on our part.
This now brings me to the major characteristic of Heart Theology, it’s nebulous and subjective. It also brings me to the fault of Heart Theology which is fatal. Unlike the understandable (lack of emphasis on God’s promised resources) and easily adjusted error of biblical counseling, The fatal error of Heart theology is its conflict with 1 Kings 8:39;
“then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
This verse emphatically states that only God can know the heart. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to use the subject (God [“you”] ) twice with no words in between (modifiers ect.). This is clearly for the purpose of strong emphasis. We cannot evaluate the heart in regard to idols. Besides, scripture often identifies sinful desires as being located in the “flesh” to begin with.
Though we depend on God’s strength, He would have us to focus on the objective and plain sense of Scripture. Following God’s wisdom and instruction is our role. Knowing and changing the heart is God’s business. Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, Adams certainly never said that. We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God. Adams said it best in a counseling conference: “The commands in the bible are not to the Holy Spirit, they are to us” and, “Quietism will ruin peoples lives.” There is no new reformation that narrows God’s precepts and wisdom for living to “deep repentance” that requires us to know our hearts. We cannot know our hearts, only God can. If there has been any reformation in the past 30 years, it has been the ability to apply the word of God to every issue of life and godliness.
paul
Matthew 24:10-13: Love Has A Soul Mate; The Law
I am so, so happy concerning the emphasis that our church has on daily Bible reading. It is so powerful, this concept of disciplining yourself to read through the scriptures daily with the illuminating presence of the Holy Spirit within. It is also an important safeguard in this age of deception we live in. You are taught by somebody to believe a certain thing and then as you are reading, some verse hits you right between the eyes with the hammer of contradiction. Other times, you are just struck by the implications of what you just read and incited to dig deeper. Such was my experience a couple of weeks ago as I read the following in Matthew 24:
10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Astounding. The love grows cold “because” of lawlessness. You would think it would be just the opposite. You would think a lack of love would lead to lawlessness as a natural result thereof. This would mean that there is no intimate relationship between law and love, lawlessness is just a natural result of a lack of love. But here in Matthew 24:11-13, a close relationship is shown.
Some translations have it “wickedness” or “iniquity” rather than lawlessness. This is a big deal. According to Vines Expository Dictionary, there are other Greek words for wickedness [poneros] and iniquity[adikia]. The latter can imply a general disfavor from mankind or various standards, not necessarily pronounced by God. The word used here and translated correctly by the ESV and many other translations is anomia which is a form of nomos or “law.” Again, according to Vines and others, the word comes from anomos and primarily means “without the law.”
So what is this law? Basically, it is ALL OF scripture. Here is what Jesus is saying specifically and in context: In the last day’s there will be a falling away from following scripture among professing believers and this will lead to lovelessness and persecution of true believers by false Christians. I will develop this as we go. But first, let me establish the fact that “law” is all of scripture and lawlessness is a turning away from following the word of God.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ says the following:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
The “Law [with the definite article preceding]” included the Decalogue and the writings of Moses. The “Prophets” are the remainder of the whole Old Testament. It was a common term referring to the totality of the Old Testament [Neh. 9:14,26 Dan. 9:2,11 Luke 24:27]. In verse 18, Christ then refers to both as “the Law.” Then in verse 19, Christ refers to scripture as “these commandments” which encompasses any revelation by divine causation and approved accordingly. This can be seen by what the Apostle Paul writes to the Cirinthians in 14:37:
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
The mandate of Christ to the Church in regard to discipleship is “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded [Matthew 28:20].”
In reference to Matthew 5:17-20,Take note: The error of the Pharisees was not primarily an attempt to be justified by law keeping, it was a replacement of the Law’s true meaning with their traditions. After warning against the inaccurate application and teaching of the Law in verse 19, Christ begins verse 20 by saying “For I tell you.” The indictment of the Pharisees was an unrighteousness that resulted from the breaking [KJV], annulment [NASB], relaxation [ESV], of the commandments that make up the Law of God [verse 19].
In verse 10 of Matthew 24:10-13, the subject of this post, “then” is the last day’s. The ones who hate and betray one another are those who “fall away.” You have to be on something before you can fall from it. These are professing believers though false. What got them to verse 12, the centerpiece of this post, is verse 11: “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.” The subjects that fall away and hate true believers were led astray by people who deal in supposed truth, false prophets. Whatever they were peddling, it did not conform with God’s law. It was “without law,” literally. The result will be a fall from love as well.
In first John, especially in regard to the “last days” and the spirit of Antichrist, I think we have further clarification regarding the association of law and love:
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining
[1John chapter 2].
Note: God’s love is only made “complete” in an ACCURATE following of Jesus found in the Law of God which is all of scripture. Also note: If we fail in that, Christ is our advocate as we pray for forgiveness. Our failure to follow the Law of God is “sin.” 1 John 3:4 says:
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
In both places within this verse, it is the same Greek word that means “without law” as found in Matthew 24:12. In a matter of fact, all of the Greek commentaries I sought out in regard to this verse such as Vines and Wuest, interpret this verse the same as the Amplified Bible:
4 Everyone who commits (practices) sin is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness (the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or neglect–being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and His will).
Now observe the hard turn John takes right after saying what he said in 1John 2:1-8 as referenced above:
9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.
Furthermore, in regard to the latter verse quoted in 1John 3:4 that defines sin as lawlessness, John moves on to the righteous walk and then love in keeping with the biblical pattern, especially in 1John [1John 3:4-24 as one example]. The intimate relationship between Law and love is intertwined throughout 1John and many other places in scripture. It only stands to reason therefore from a defensive standpoint that we read this in 1John 2:18:
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
John is writing to New Testament believers. Therefore, we are in the last segment of redemptive history. Indicative of our time will be an expectation of a grand antichrist to come, but with many forerunners of him running about presently. Do you know what is synonymous with antichrist? We have the answer in 2Thess. Chapter 2:
1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
The Apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of “lawlessness” four times in this passage. Anti-law [nomian] will be the spirit of this age. Matthew 24:10-13 is a thumbnail of what will come to a full picture of lawlessness in the tribulation period. False teachers will devalue the Law [Scripture] among God’s people which will lead to an eradication of true love in the Church. This will culminate into a full blown persecution of true believers by the world and the false church during the tribulation period. They will suffer persecution from within and without. This spirit is presently at work today via the many antichrist roaming about as a mark of this age.
But here is the first lesson for us: The way of true love is the learning and application of God’s objective word to our lives. This is how we love God and others. Love and Law are soul mates. This is the exact point of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-40:
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
This is not saying that God’s law has been replaced by a subjective higher law of love. Those who teach this and devalue the rest of God’s law unwittingly do the bidding of antichrist. The rest of scripture defines the love that all of the Law hangs on. Love is the sum but is obviously defined by the rest of scripture. In a matter of fact, when Jesus taught the above to one individual, this individual sought to justify himself by questioning the definition of who a “neighbor” is. The single word “love” did not define that, Jesus did:
27And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
29But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Jesus said: “If you Love me, keep my commandments.”
- John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
- John 14:21
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
- John 14:15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
This isn’t rocket science and I am not going to make it any more complicated than Jesus did. If you want to love God and others, pick up a Bible, study it, and then apply it to your life. This is the way of love. Talk is cheap. The sin of the Pharisees was not primarily an attempt to justify themselves by Law keeping, it was the exact opposite. They redefined scripture according to their man-made traditions and failed to apply the remainder that happened to be truth, thereby becoming lawless and loveless:
42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” [Luke 11]
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” [Matthew 23]
The way of lovelessness begins with being dragged away from the objective truth of God’s word and it’s practical application. And remember, ALL of scripture is “the Law.” The book of love written by the Holy Spirit also contains instruction for protecting love. We are warned that a devaluation of the true law will be the juggernaut of darkness in this last age. Let us be on guard accordingly while applying the way of love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments