Is Gospel-Driven Sanctification Really “Sonship” Theology?
Two weeks ago, sitting in my office with my feet propped on a bookcase and chatting with Susan, I happened to be looking up at my Jay Adams shelf. Since it had been too long since I’d read any of his material (at least two weeks), I put my feet down on the floor and began perusing what I haven’t lent to other people; and thinking, “Hmmm, wonder what this is: ‘Biblical Sonship.’”
I always read the preface. So you have the cover, cover page, copyright, contents, and preface. I was reading the first page of the preface, and in the third paragraph, when I read the following: “It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith in the good news.”
Barely a hundred words into the book, and I was stunned. That is the exact same thesis as gospel sanctification, a movement I have been researching for three years. The movement (gospel sanctification, or “gospel-driven sanctification”) is huge and its propagators are the who’s who of the evangelical world that they are supposedly trying to save: DA Carson, Michael Horton, Paul David Tripp, David Powlison, Tim Keller, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Devers, Francis Chan, Jerry Bridges, and many, many others. The theology is also propagated by several missionary alliances and church planting organizations like the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa.
As Jay Adams notes in his book, the Sonship movement was started by Jack Miller, a former professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary who is now deceased. According to other sources, Jack Miller’s epiphany concerning Sonship occurred while he was on an extended trip in Spain with his family. An article I read by Geoff Thomas in Banner of Truth was written in 2003, and he mentions the trip to Spain as being about twenty years prior; so figure 1980, or around that time, for the birth of Sonship theology.
In all of my studies concerning gospel sanctification, I had never heard of Jack Miller or Sonship theology, but it became clear from the Jay Adams book that the two theologies are the same thing with the usual peripheral aberrations from the basic form; and the basic form being, but not confined to, progressive justification, sanctification by faith alone, substitutionary monergistic sanctification, and the total depravity of the saints. There is absolutely no doubt – this theology turns orthodoxy completely upside down while the intestinal fortitude of the rest of the evangelical community wanes. Apparently, big names like Jerry Bridges and others are like GM, they’re just too big to fail. As one brother wrote to me: “How dare you criticize DA Carson, one the greatest theological minds of our day!” Furthermore, as Dr. Peter Masters has noted, it is interesting that doctrine doesn’t matter if you are “gospel-driven” in your beliefs. For example, Charismatic and emergent church leaders are readily excepted into the new Calvinism clan if they are “gospel-centered.”
But what came first? Sonship, or gospel sanctification? Did gospel-driven sanctification come from Sonship? Is Jack Miller the father of new Calvinism? It’s looking that way. Historical precedent for gospel sanctification (GS) cannot be found before (approx.)1980. It is the brainchild of Dr. David Powlison, professor at CCEF, the biblical counseling wing of Westminster Seminary. GS came out of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” curriculum developed and taught by him at Westminster. Two of his former students articulated the doctrine in the book “How People Change.” This is made clear by Powlison in the forward he wrote for the same book. Shortly prior to the book’s release, the doctrine’s theories were tested in local churches via a pilot program. In the reformed church I attended that was part of the pilot program, the curriculum was taught in a Sunday school class with a limited number of participants.
“How People Change” articulates a theology that is virtually identical to Sonship theology. And, it just so happens that David Powlison himself claims that Jack Miller is his “mentor.” He recently stated this as fact while teaching a seminar at John Piper’s church, and in the midst of fustigating Jay Adams for criticizing Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves everyday” *see endnote. I thought this phrase was originally coined by Jerry Bridges, but Jerry Bridges attributes the phrase to Jack Miller in the preface of “The Disciplines of Grace.” Tim Keller, a looming figure in the new Calvinism / gospel-driven / gospel sanctification movement, was teaching GS under the “Sonship” nomenclature as late as 2006. On the Puritan Board, a faint cry for help was uttered by a person saying the following: “ The Sonship theology of Tim Keller has taken a hold of the church I attend. Am I the only one, or does anyone else have a problem with this?”
Furthermore, my research would strongly suggest that the development of other contemporary theologies like New Covenant Theology, (many attribute its conception to Westminster Seminary sometime during the 80’s or 90’s), heart theology (definitely conceived at Westminster during the 90’s), redemptive-historical hermeneutics, and Christian hedonism (latter conceived by John Piper in the 80’s) were primarily driven by the need to validate Sonship / GS doctrine. Sonship needs the NCT perspective on the law, the supposed practical application of finding idols in the heart via heart theology, the perspective of how Sonship is experienced through Christian hedonism, and more than anything else, an interpretive redemptive prism supplied by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But why has gospel sanctification enjoyed freedom from ridicule not afforded to Sonship? They are, for all practical purposes, the same exact thing and encompass many of the same teachers. Probably because gospel sanctification has the word “gospel” in it. In this age of hyper-grace, people will shy away from any appearance of being against “the gospel.” I have to believe that the movement has traded the Sonship label, with its share of bullet holes, for the “gospel-driven” label. Sonship has been besieged by two works, the book by Jay Adams and a lengthy article by Van Dixhoorn, a former student at Westminster. Sonship has also been pelted with its share of the “antinomian” accusation, and rightfully so. In my second addition of “Another Gospel,” I write the following on page 78:
“….if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.”
At least one book, a lengthy pamphlet, and several articles defend Sonship against Adams and Van Dixhoorn, but the theological arguments are woefully lame. Nevertheless, my point is that gospel sanctification, though the same thing, is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout the church without controversy while unifying camps that are theologically suspect to say the least.
It is what it is; while mad theological scientist concoct all sorts of new potions in the lab and send their minions out to commit first-degree doctrinal felonies in broad daylight, while many who profess to love the real gospel say nothing. I pray that will change, while thanking God for those who love the truth more than the acceptance and praises of men.
Endnote:
Powlison failed to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book that is an apology against Sonship theology. Failure to mention that put Adams in an anti-gospel light as well as depriving him of the ability to contextualize the criticism. As an aside, Powlison, in the same seminar, criticized “idol hunting”; but yet, he is the inventor of “X-ray questions”(which he also mentioned in positive terms without the “X-ray” terminology, but rather something like “reorienting questions”) which are designed to identify heart idols (see page 163 of “How People Change”). His mentor, Jack Miller, developed a complex system of idol hunting that included twenty different categories of heart idols (Jack Miller, “Repentance and the 20th Century Man”CLC 1998). This kind of disingenuous double-speak is commonplace within the movement.
“Christless Christianity”: Michael Horton’s Lawless Trilogy
See no law, hear no law, speak no law. Such is “Christless Christianity,” published by Dr. Michael Horton in 2008. He presents the book as a treatise exposing the supposed fact that the church is awash in a “Christless” evangelicalism. After suffering through page after page of a nuanced semblance of orthodoxy masking his antinomian bent, his real thesis, and what drives his “Modern Reformation” organization, is stated on page 62.
See No Law
On page 62, he states the following:
“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.”
Encompassed in this statement is Dr. Horton’s position on “faith,” “practice,” and how we “communicate” those things to the world. Let’s look at the “faith” part. First, he says that both the unregenerate and regenerate are dependent on the “free grace” of God disclosed in “the gospel” “at every moment.” He goes on to say that the gospel (ie., the free grace of justification) does two things: gives life to the spiritually dead (“unregenerate”) and “continually give[s] life to Christ’s flock (ie., believers).
Secondly, believers only receive this life “every time WE encounter the gospel afresh.” Therefore, the relationship of the gospel to unbelievers and believers is no different. We are raised to life and progressively transformed in the exact same way. Horton says this happens at “every moment”; therefore, people are raised to life by the gospel (justification by faith alone) and transformed by the gospel (justification by faith alone), and only “each time” they encounter the gospel “afresh.”
Thirdly, what gospel gives life to the unregenerate? Well, Horton says plainly that if believers leave that same gospel, “you loose both.” Both what? Answer: sanctification and justification. Horton says you get “both” in the bargain because according to him they are both the same. In other word’s, what orthodox Christians normally consider to be sanctification, is really progressive justification. Ever heard of that? Didn’t think so. Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.
Fourthly, we also see another tenet of antinomian (see no law) doctrine (specifically, gospel sanctification) in this same excerpt: “….but the Spirit working through the gospel.” Note “but.” But what? The giving of life: “….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life….” In other words, the Spirit only works through the gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are only used by the Spirit to impart life when the Bible is used in regard to showing forth justification, or the gospel. This is the redemptive-historical use of the Bible. Again, a gospel sanctification tenet. Hence, using the Bible for spiritual instruction is supposedly taboo, and in fact, law-keeping (as though that’s wrong for believers to do in the first place). Like many other proponents of antinomian doctrines, Horton’s teachings will contain a lot of very good what (descriptive information [which the Bible has in glorious abundance]), but rarely any how (prescriptive), and I contend to the detriment of many. They will have a glorious picture of heaven in their minds as they die on the vine, being hearers of the word (they would say gospel) only and not doers, “deceiving themselves.”
Fifthly, we see Horton’s mystical personification of Christ and the gospel in this part of the excerpt: “Start with Christ (that is, the gospel)….” Making the nebulous concept of the person of Christ synonymous with “the gospel,” and also paramount in interpretation rather than what Christ objectively instructs, serves antinomians well. Their writings are often peppered with this kind of subjective rhetoric, but it always has a purpose. An example is making “the gospel” synonymous with “the word” so they can say that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, and therefore serving that purpose only (progressive justification) for believers and unbelievers alike.
Lastly, If Horton, like the antinomian doctrine that he propagates, sees no difference in justification and sanctification, then the law will play the exact same role for believers as it does unbelievers. In fact, this is what Horton believes. However, the following excerpt from “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living” reveals how difficult it is to nail down Horton on this aspect:
“It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with ‘gospel’ and deeds with ‘law,’ especially since these days we often hear calls to ‘live the gospel.’ However, the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, ‘May it never be!’ It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commandments in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commandments not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the ‘reasonable service’ of believers ‘in view of God’s mercies.’ There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commandments tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done.”
This excerpt reminds me of the John Kerry controversy during the 2004 presidential election: “I was for it before I was against it.” First, because of Horton’s progressive justification view, it is not possible for him to believe that the law has a role in sanctification anymore than it would in justification, other than a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for justification. Though he makes statements above that seem to indicate that he believes the law has a role in the spiritual growth process, that’s not the case, it’s just not logically possible when his positions are considered. Consequently, we can clearly see the statements that match progressive justification: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior….” The law shows unbelievers their need for Christ, but please note that the Scriptures never tell us that God’s commands / imperatives drive Christians to despair; the extreme opposite is true. In fact, Christians are promised blessings for applying God’s word to their life (James 1:25).
Secondly, Horton makes it clear in the first excerpt that the Holy Spirit only imparts life “through the gospel”(“….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel”) ; then, he says in the second excerpt that “…. the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative [indicative: indicative of God’s work, not ours]….” But throughout Scripture, we see clearly that in fact, the Holy Spirit does use imperatives to impart life. Examples such as Matthew 4:4 and John 17:17 (see endnote number 3) are abundant throughout the whole Bible. Another glaring contradiction to Scripture is Horton’s suggestion in the second excerpt that commands “are not promises.”
Michael Horton’s gospel is a no-Lordship, antinomian gospel because obeying biblical commands is synonymous with works justification. Furthermore, he believes that biblical commands are indicative of God’s work, not ours. I delve into the subject of imperatives / indicatives in two other essays in this same section.
Hear No law
How does all of this effect corporate worship? Supposedly, we are not to see any law in our progressive justification, but what about when we come together to worship? Should we then hear the law? Michael Horton says the following 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.”
As in the process of spiritual growth, corporate worship focuses totally on the gospel. Notice that Horton refers to believers as a “valley of dry bones” who have come to be made alive by the Spirit’s work through the gospel. This is another tenet of the neo-antinomianism of our day, the total depravity of the saints. In a contrasting scenario (or how not to have corporate worship) on page 191, Horton adds the following: “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.” Note that believers are called “sinners,” and also note the construction of the sentence which would indicate that believers and unbelievers are the same kind of sinners who both gather together for the same purpose.
Again, we also see the redemptive-historical application of Scripture as well for the implementation of grace to passive recipients, and the exclusion of any use of Scripture for spiritual instruction. In fact, Horton chides the latter in the second scenario. Hear no law. Though Horton seems to add balance to this perspective by acknowledging that the Bible mentions “exhortations” in worship, I am skeptical in regard to the genuineness of these statements; the fact remains that his major premise is grievous error.
Speak no Law
Regarding evangelism, the following excerpt is taken from pages 117-119 of “Christless Christianity.” Unfortunately, the excerpt is lengthy, but necessary:
“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. “12 (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.
Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and relocation (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.
We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.
Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identified the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.
Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?”13 I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church movement’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law (do this) without the gospel (this is what has been done).”
Really, I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. There is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts? However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above; “What does the Scriptures say?”:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives”(1Peter 3:1,2).
Obviously, Peter is well aware that wives will never have a perfect testimony; but regardless, his counsel to wives is clearly stated. This plainly contradicts Horton’s premise in every way possible.
Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men, so that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the Scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the doctrine of God as Paul also talked about? (Titus 2:10).
The apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to devalue the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those who claim to uphold God’s law by saying He (Christ) does all the obeying for us. Even if they don’t come right out and say it, they may talk against everything that would prevent such a conclusion, and therefore teaching it by default.
Endnotes
3. Of course, Michael Horton would say that the “word” is the “gospel” which wouldn’t include imperatives, but only indicatives, being the gospel. Therefore, as Paul David Tripp also says, the imperatives must be seen in their “gospel context” which means they are indicative of what Christ did for us by obeying the law perfectly in our stead. Therefore, biblical commands are “grounded in the indicative event”; namely, atonement, which not only included the imputation of righteousness, but past, present, and future active obedience as well.
“The Power is in the Doing”: Statement by Former Counselor Could Ruin His Career
I heard it again yesterday at the end of a pretty-decent sermon; the first of a series on the life of Abraham. Of course, in our neo- everything about salvation church culture, the title of the series is “Abraham:Justified by Faith.” Thank goodness. Between every song on the radio being about justification, every praise song being about the cross, and the words “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” faintly burned into the background of my monitor from too much web surfing, I had almost forgotten.
That was yesterday, and I had almost forgotten again on the way to take Phillip to school this morning when I heard these words from a song on the radio: “Mercy doesn’t care what you have done.” Though 2Cor 5:10 came to mind the second I heard it, I then saw a calm, smiling, assuring face in my mind’s eye; with a big bushy mustache and glasses on it saying, “Paul, Paul, my precious namesake, such verses must be seen in their “gospel context.” Again, thank goodness, I almost traded in “a treasure chest of joy” for working out my own salvation with trembling and fear.
So, before I forget, what was the “it” I heard at the end of the pretty-decent (because I learned some pretty-cool stuff) sermon yesterday? Well, the end of the sermon was prefaced with a warning that we don’t want to do anything (that I assume we had learned in the sermon), “in our own strength,” or “in our own efforts.” That statement, or qualifier, doesn’t usually incite a lost practice in today’s church: interpretive questions. Like, “How do we, or how would we, know when we are doing it in our “own efforts” or otherwise? However, such questions may not be asked very often, if at all, because it has become taboo in today’s church culture to even ask “how” which could imply verbs that may have to follow in the answer, and thereby plunging many into sin, and worse yet, a denial of the gospel.
Besides, such questions could also incite other troublesome questions in the what category: Is it possible to go to the bathroom in my own efforts? And if I do, is it sin? Or, is there a dichotomy between things we can do wrongfully in “our own efforts”(a spiritual category), and other things where we can’t? (non-spiritual category). And how many categories are there accordingly? And what are they?And once we separate the categories, how do we do the spiritual ones without interjecting our sinful, own efforts? And how does this jive with what the apostle Paul said about doing “all things” to the glory of God?
Oh for the days when sermons answered more questions than they raised. Oh for the days when Christians thought enough to ask questions. Why does it matter? Because we counsel like we preach. Because we tell people to live the way we preach. Because all music we hear on the radio is inspired by what those musicians hear at their own local churches. If you need counsel regarding a deep problem in your life, I can tell you how a pastor and his parishioners will counsel you – listen to his sermons. If all you hear from the pulpit is the gospel, that’s all your going to get in the counseling chambers as well. If the sermon raises more questions than it answers, so will the counseling. And if you don’t ask interpretive questions about life – your well on you way to being a goner for all practical purposes.
And why does all of that matter? Many years ago, I was on my way to see a pastor / counselor, and I was in big, big, trouble. And like all Christians who are in big trouble, or in deep waters, we are looking for a silver bullet; or, at least the secret Bible verse that will end all of our problems in fifteen minutes. Nobody likes pain, and there are no problem pills, just pain pills, which make the pain go away, but not the problem. And at that time, I would have loved to hear the silver bullet solution offered today : the gospel. I can imagine how it would have gone as I eagerly anticipated his entry into the room. Upon his entry, a birth of hope, and the hope escalating with each new event: the greeting; taking his seat at the table; opening his notebook, pen in hand; asking questions like a skillful, knowing doctor; listening to my description of the problem; and then, alas! it’s time! God’s solution! It may have gone like this:
Counselor: “Paul, I have listened to you describe your problems and I have also read the testimony about your life that I asked you to write and deliver to my office prior to this appointment. Paul, there is a topic conspicuously lacking from all that you have said today, and in your testimony as well. Do you know what that is?
Me: “Uh, no.”
Counselor: “Christ”
Me: “But I wrote about how I was saved in 1983!”
Counselor: “So, you only needed grace in 1983?”
Me: “Well, no, of course not, we need Christ every day”
Counselor: “But you have been living like you only needed Him in 1983.”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Counselor: “Paul, we don’t just accept the gospel once and then move on to other things, we need the gospel every day”
Me: “Every day?”
Counselor: “Yes. The key to a life of joy is going deeper and deeper into the gospel that saved us, not going deeper into other things. Paul, you know a lot of theology, but unfortunately, your theology is about what you do, NOT what Jesus does for us. Paul, take your Bible and go to Romans 7:24 and read it aloud.”
Me: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
Counselor: “You didn’t just need to be rescued in 1983, you need to be rescued every day. All of your efforts right now, many of which you mention in your written testimony, are nothing more than Christless activism being done in your own efforts. Also, your criticism of others that I see in your written testimony is spawned by the very success that you obtain in applying your theological concepts to life; this creates a self-righteous attitude rather than cultivating a spirit that totally depends on Christ, and what He has already done for us, not anything we try to do.”
Me: “I knew it! I knew it! I knew something has always been missing! [the silver bullet! The secret Bible verse! (Rom 7:24)]. What now?! Where do we go from here?”
Counselor: “Paul, look at you- you are full of joy- joy is indicative of true saving faith. How long has it been since you have been happy Paul?”
Me: “Oh my! It has been forever!”
Counselor: “In the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul addressed a trap that the Galatians had fallen into. He explained it this way in Gal 3:3; ‘Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?’ By trying to learn imperatives in the Bible and applying them to your life, you are not living by the same Spirit that you supposedly trusted in when you professed your belief in Christ. This is using the Bible for law-keeping instead of looking in the Scriptures for more gospel, and more Christ. That is what the apostle is talking about, in this verse, when he speaks of a ‘receiving by faith’ verses a ‘receiving by works of the law (or Scripture).’”
Me: “Wow! I’ve been fed a bill of goods all of my Christian life! I may not even be saved!”
Counselor: “Well Paul, you come from Reformed theology, which is good, and many great Reformed leaders of our time like Micheal Horton say that if you accept the gospel and ‘move on to something else, you loose both’ both meaning sanctification AND justification. Another awesome Reformed leader of our time, the great, and magnificent John Piper, said that as Christians, a ‘battle to perform’ makes that battle the grounds of our justification. Instead, he says we must make ‘a battle to believe’ our primary focus in the Christian life, or we are making anything more than that (belief only) our grounds for justification. In other words, works salvation.”
Me: [Remember, we’re pretending] “WOW! This is the light bulb moment of my life!
Counselor: “Turn to Galatians 2:20, and read it aloud.”
Me: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Counselor: “Who no longer lives?”
Me: “Us.”
Counselor: “And we live by what only?”
Me: “Faith.”
Counselor: “So Paul, are you now ready to really die to yourself and the law?”
Me: “Absolutely!”
Now, here is what really happened based on true events. It is a paraphrased synopsis that encompasses the major, and most important points:
Counselor: “I have a new goal for you Paul, your new goal is to please Christ.”
Me: “How is that going to get me out of this problem?”
Counselor: “That’s not Biblical thinking. Your primary goal isn’t to merely get out of the problem, but to please God in the midst of the problem and let the problem work to transform you into the image of Christ.”
Me: “That’s hard.”
Counselor: “Who told you that the Christian life is always easy?”
Me: “But how could this happen to a Christian?”
Counselor: “Where would I even start? ‘He causes it to rain and shine on the just as well as the unjust.’ ‘He disciplines those whom He loves.’ We can start there.”
Me: “So he allows this stuff into our life to bring good out of it?”
Counselor: “No, that’s not biblical thinking. He not only allows it, He promises to never allow anything into our life that we cannot endure. This tells us two things: first, he is in total control of everything that comes into our lives. He not only allows it, God is up to something in your life! He is right in the middle of this situation. Secondly, He has promised to see you through till the end of the trial. The trial is for your good, and not your destruction. This is His promise to you, and I am challenging you to persevere accordingly. The trial will end in God’s time, but it will have an end, and you will be more like Christ.”
Me: “So, this is the very hand of God working in my life. Not the way I would have ordered it, but I guess it’s not God’s will that everything goes the way we think it should.”
Counselor: “Exactly.”
Me: “But I don’t understand. I am praying hard and reading my Bible every day. Where am I going wrong?”
Counselor: “You are doing the right thing the wrong way [Stop here for a moment. There is no such thing as “doing it in our own efforts.” The real problem is: “doing it the wrong way” ie., other than God’s way]. I would never tell you not to read your Bible, or pray, but the power is in the doing.”
Me: “I’m not comfortable with that! It sounds legalistic! Could that approach really be curative?”
Counselor: “Read Matthew 7:24-27 aloud.”
Me: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Counselor: “Sure, you read the Bible, but what I can tell from the data I have collected, you do not properly apply what you have read. When that happens, which of the houses in Matthew seven is yours?”
Me: “At this point, and under the circumstances, I think that’s obvious.”
Counselor: “Read James 1:22-25 aloud.”
Me: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.”
Counselor: “Again, our primary goal is to please Christ, but to answer your question, pleasing Christ by practicing His word, the right way, IS curative, especially in regard to the lack of peace you have in your life right now. Regarding peace that comes from right praying, right thinking, and right doing, I have given you homework on Philippians four. Your appointment is for this time next week. Don’t come unless your homework is done.”
Me: “So, do you think I’m saved?”
Counselor: “Well, your profession is sound, and salvation is by faith alone, but if your for real, you will do what God wants you to do.”
I might add that the real counselor would have been quick to qualify his statement with the following: “Our doing — God’s power.” In fact, though I look back at how difficult it was to persevere through that trial, I recognize the fact that even though it took much effort on my part, I couldn’t have persevered without God’s help, empowerment, illumination, and granting of willpower. But it is also very important to remember that He has promised to supply these three in the midst of trials. Notwithstanding, it will still take everything we have in us to persevere; this is how we experience trials, and really, it’s how we should experience our walk with God as well, loving God with “all of our heart, soul, and mind.” If we will do this, God will gladly supply all the will that we need accordingly. The apostle Paul said to never grow weary in well-doing. The Hebrew writer said to lift up the limbs that are sagging because of exhaustion. Do that, because God will supply, as a manner of speaking, the second wind.
First, the Scriptures are clear; we are called on to exert much of our own effort in the sanctification process, and it is our own effort. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be the ones with the sagging limbs and weariness (Heb 12:12). We are strengthened by grace as we obey and “make every effort to add to [our] your faith” (2Pet 1:5). Without our effort, we will be “ineffective” and “unproductive” in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Pet 1:8). And unless we “make every effort,” we will lack assurance as fruits are not prevalent in our lives; because obviously, we aren’t making an effort to do so.
Secondly, it is impossible to obey God, or do God’s will wrongfully “in our own efforts,” Why? Because the Holy Spirit works through God’s word, and according to truth (John 17:17). As my counselor aptly noted, the real problem is attempting to do God’s will the wrong way, or no way (spiritual laziness), NOT correct practice thereof. The fear that believers can be like unbelievers by correctly obeying God’s word “in there own efforts” is untrue because unbelievers cannot have a proper understanding of God’s word,and the proper practice thereof, in the first place. The whole notion is patently absurd.
The Scriptures do more than tell us how to be saved. They also tell us how to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.” To say that the Scriptures are solely for the purpose of showing Christians how to be more deeply justified / saved every day is an antinomian lie from the pit of hell. And frankly, I don’t care who propagates the lie, or how well they dress, or how many degrees they have after their name; their counsel is instructing Christians to build their houses upon sand, and not rock. We don’t tell those who “dig deep” (Lk 6:48) to worry about working “by their own efforts,” Their own efforts are certainly involved. Anyone who even makes such a statement from the pulpit is antinomian because the very statement, “obeying God in our own efforts,” begs the next question: how would we know? And….(see all of the aforementioned mess you get into to, like practical dichotomies, etc.).
My former counselor had it right, the power (or at least the blessings [Js 1:25]) is in the doing, and specifically, right doing; but far be it from me to mention his name here, it would ruin his career and he might have to go work at a car wash, or worse yet, an Arminian seminary. The bunch he works with right now would be aghast that he would say such a thing to a counselee, and often malign others publicly for the same offense. However, maybe he’s safe; he could have “repented.” He may now be doing his part in showing hurting people “more Jesus,” or “more gospel,” or how to find what Jesus did in the text, rather than anything Jesus might tell us to do.
If that’s true, let’s close with another counseling scenario:
My former counselor: “So, what have you learned?
Counselee: “I have to do it by doing it through God. But that seems like I’m doing it by making God do it. But I guess not, because I have to do that by not doing it, but by letting God do it. This is hard because I keep trying to do that in my own strength. I have to work harder at that. I mean, not work, but let God work, that’s what I have to work at. I mean…does that sound right?
paul
“That’s Not True”: Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification Statement
I can tell Susan will be a huge help on the second edition of “Another Gospel” which is an apology against Gospel Sanctification. Basically, the doctrine makes sanctification and justification the same thing. However, I never cease to be amazed at how difficult it is for Christians to get their mind around this doctrine and its ramifications. One reason is the fact that the following is true: both sanctification and justification share some of the same progressive elements, but GS makes them entirely synonymous which translates, for all practical purposes, into Antinomianism which has always been deemed heretical by evangelicals.
Susan seems to have a decent grasp on several issues spawned by GS, but like many, she is still working at putting it all together. Then it happened. We were at a basketball game and she picked up a book I had brought with me, opened it, and just started reading. Then, about a minute later, she said the following: “That’s not true.” I then inquired, “what isn’t true?” She pointed me to the Preface where Phillip Carey writes the following in “Good News for Anxious Christians”:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I then replied to her: “Honey, that’s Gospel Sanctification.” Ah, the power of concise statements, and it’s very unlikely this essay won’t be added to the book in revised form. First, most proponents of GS recognize that the doctrine is not orthodox. This can be seen in Cary’s admission via the first sentence: “Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe.” No Phillip, many of us find it odd, not just “some”. Like another advocate of GS said, “the vast majority” of Christians find it odd (Tullian Tchividjian). Another advocate, Paul David Tripp, described those who find it odd as “hordes of.” This is a characteristic of those who propagate GS – they think they are modern-day reformers. In fact, Michael Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” The arrogance that comes with this mentality lags not far behind.
Secondly, we see the GS tenet of justification not being a one time, final act of God in the following two sentences: “I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure out how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives.” Though advocates of GS deceptively refer to this as “progressive sanctification,” it’s really progressive justification which is totally unorthodox. Another example of this would be Paul Tripp’s belief that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” and not glorification. If you think it smacks of a daily re-saving / salvation, consider this comment made on Justin Taylor’s blog:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins.”
Next, we see the GS tenet of sanctification by faith alone in this sentence: “ We become new people in Christ by faith alone…” Again, another tenet that is totally unorthodox. JC Ryle said:
“It thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
But, keep in mind, according to the GS doctrine, sanctification is justification.
Next, we see the tenet of “the imputed active obedience of Christ”( Another way advocates state IAOC is “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event”) in this sentence from the same aforementioned statement: “We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.” So, if we can’t even let God enable us, who obeys? Jesus does, he obeys for us. This is also indicative of the GS tenet that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ while we remain “totally depraved,” and “enslaved” to sin. Obviously, if we are still totally depraved, we can’t obey, Jesus must obey for us. This tenet is propagated throughout “How People Change,” a book written by Paul Tripp.
Lastly, we see the GS proclamation that co-laboring with Christ in the sanctification process is a false gospel ( …”not by our good works”). Paul Tripp states this in no uncertain terms when he said that even the passive endeavor of changing our thinking to align with Scripture effectively “denies the work of Christ as Savior.” He has also described any effort of ours at all in the sanctification process as “Christless activism.” In fact, this is also Michael Horton’s thesis for his book “Christless Christianity.”
So there you have it. The tenets of GS: progressive justification (which excludes sanctification); sanctification by faith alone; the total depravity of the saints; the imputation of obedience (Christ obeys for us); and monergistic sanctification (the only true gospel).
The doctrine is propagated by many well known, supposedly mainline evangelical leaders of our day. Primarily, it boils down to being an antinomian, let go and let God theology. How the doctrine articulates the use of the gospel only in the sanctification process is another body of information.
paul
Commendation, and Hyper-Grace Pharisees
Offended, he was, when I told a pastor that his sermon was a “home run.” “I don’t hit ‘home runs,’” he said, obviously offended because I didn’t “give all of the glory to the Lord.” Besides, depending on his flavor of hyper-grace theology prevalent in our day, he might also believe that Christ actually delivered the sermon “through him.” Hence, we are merely lifeless vessels that Christ uses to do His work. It is more than fair to say that this kind of theology is being propagated by some of the most respected leaders of our day. Then there was the time I was talking to the recipient of an astounding gift from another Christian family who was a family of little financial means. The gift (to meet an important need) was a proverbial giving of the right arm. I commented to the recipient regarding how amazed I was at such a sacrificial gift. The response: “they didn’t give me anything, it was the Lord.” It was obvious that the recipient was not only offended by my remark, but was defending the other family from the sin of not “giving all of the glory to the Lord.”
Yes, grace is in the air like never before. Jesus does it all. As Steve Green sings, we are “empty vessels waiting to be filled.” We are empty, and all we can do is *wait* and hope that Jesus will do something in our lives, so when he does, everyone will know it was the Lord because we are “empty,” dead vessels. And as Steve Green also notes in the same song, “That’s Were The Joy Comes From,” when we see Jesus obeying for us. Therefore, to commend others is to deny that Jesus did it all; a sin worthy of receiving the dreaded label spelled P-h-a-r-i-s-e-e.
There is only one problem. We have let theologians of our day define *legalism* which the Pharisees were supposedly guilty of. Their definition of legalism is any effort on our part to do what God wants us to do. I like what Jay Adams has to say about this notion:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (“What is Sanctification” INS blog, September 16, 2010).
In a book that I would not recommend (“Introduction to Biblical Counseling” by the Master’s College faculty) because it gives unwarranted credibility to some who are not doctrinally sound (ie., David Powlison and others), Dennis Swanson rightly notes that “legalism is a term that is frequently tossed around without much thought to its meaning” (p. 381). He proceeds to define legalism in these biblical terms: “In legalism someone establishes an external standard of spirituality and then judges everyone by that standard.” And that’s what the Pharisees were guilty of. They mingled the Law of God with their own tradition making it “void” (Matthew 15:1-9). All of today’s much-ado-about-nothing regarding the fear that we will unwittingly offend God by doing what he wants us to do scripturally, because it is us doing it and not Him, is not legalism.
Though many other examples could be used, let me now continue to use “commendation” as an example of how this passive view of Scripture is actually legalism, and not our “own”(as if the exercise of our efforts automatically denies God’s efficacious involvement) efforts to please God. Simply put, to not recognize the good works of others (Christians, of course) because it supposedly takes glory from God and implies that we have a role in good works, is an external standard that is not biblical, and therefore is really legalism. The apostle Paul explicitly commands us to commend others and recognize them publicly, and did so himself on many occasions:
“So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me”(Philippians 2:29,30).
Paul also called Timothy God’s “co-worker” (1Thessalonians 3:2 ESV). I mean really, do we need to look up “co-worker” in Webster’s Dictionary? We are to commend those who do their part in God’s work. And frankly, I find the disclaimer “we know the Lord did it all” whenever we do commend saints, annoying. Let me use one more example other than “commendation” before I close. Since I mentioned him above, David Powlison has said to never tell a counselee to “just stop it,” and that the Lord would never say that to one of his children (see full article here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/will-the-poo-pooing-of-scriptures-plain-sense-ever-cease/ ) This is a standard set by Powlison, not Scripture (see John 5:14, Acts 15:29, 21:25, 1Peter 2:11). Abstinence is clearly one of many weapons in our sanctification repertoire. Again, many other examples could be cited, but legalism is the following of a false standard, not biblical standards, we call that “obedience.”
While claiming to be on a crusade to save the church from Pharisee-ism and legalism, they are really the ones that are the Pharisees of our day. Specifically, they are hyper-grace Pharisees.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
10 comments