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
Death by Good News: Living the “Gospel-Driven Life” Isn’t Really About Living “by” the Gospel
“The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness are not an exact replica of discipleship activity.”
“At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death.”
I could start this post by complaining about the lack of Scooby-Doo’s inquisitive “er?” among God’s people in regard to some concept of “living by the gospel” *every day,* but we’re way past that in our day and age. We have rather gone to the other kind of dogs; the one frantically running for the bacon flavored “Kibbles and Bits” while chanting, “I love bacon, I love bacon, I love bacon.” If it sounds good, it’s bacon baby. Never mind some possible chemical reaction taking place inside the cranium area that would insight a small, still voice saying: “Wait a minute here. We are saved by the gospel, which is a fairly narrow concept; how does one also live by that same narrow concept every day? Not only that, believing the gospel gets us into the kingdom, once in, why do the saved still need it?” I don’t know if I will ever get remarried or not, but certainly, if I were ever on a date and the lady asked such a question, it would be a sure sign from God.
But actually, I can answer that question. Yes, there is a sense in which we should live by the gospel every day. When we forgive somebody we are forgiving them in the same way that we were forgiven:
Ephesians 4:32
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
There you go, that’s living by the gospel, and we should most certainly practice that every day if necessary. What about patience towards others in the same way God was patient towards you until you surrendered your life to him?:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Again, this is living by the gospel. Yet another example, perhaps the most viable, is a daily dieing to self:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 9:23
Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Luke 14:27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Mark 8:35
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Furthermore, daily service to others is living by the gospel:
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Pity though, this is not what proponents of the “gospel-driven life,” or Christocentric theology, or Christ centered (you fill in the blank), or gospel centered (fill in the blank), or cross centered (you fill in the blank), and Gospel Sanctification have in mind. But hold that thought. Even if they did have this in mind (which would be a good start), here are three major reasons why Gospel Sanctification would still be a fraud:
1. It’s a part of being a disciple and not the whole thing. We are not only called to live a cross-like life, we are also called to “follow” him:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
For example, we are to follow Christ who also pleased God the Father in many other ways other than obedience to the cross. Before Christ went to the cross, here is what the Father said of Him:
Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Christ said of Himself:
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
John 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”
All of these statements are before the cross. Walking as a disciple is more than cross-likeness, it is also observing “all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:20).
2. The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness is not an exact replica of discipleship activity. For example, we obeyed the gospel unto salvation by faith and repentance. As believers, we still repent daily, but it’s not the same kind of repentance that saved us, there is a difference. Specifically, it is the difference between repentance that justifies and repentance that takes place during sanctification. Jesus made it clear that there is a difference:
John 13:10
Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
Christians have clean bodies (salvation); they now only need to wash their feet daily. Gospel Sanctification clearly teaches that we need the same gospel that saved us every day. This is impossible because to satisfy a connection with the gospel daily, we would need the same repentance, which is no longer needed by the believer. Not only that, the faith is not the same either. The gospel requires a faith alone. As J.C. Ryle rightly notes in his 20 letters on holiness, though the Scriptures say specifically that we are justified by faith alone, they never say we are sanctified by faith *alone.* In fact, James clearly states that the blessings of sanctification come “in” obedience (James 1:25) and not faith alone. Here is what J.C. Ryle said accordingly
“It is Scriptural and right to say faith alone justifies. But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say faith alone sanctifies.”
Simply stated, faith and repentance differ between justification (gospel) and sanctification. Therefore, we can live by the gospel implicitly as believers (note above examples), but not explicitly because the body has already been washed. The gospel can have serious implications to our lives as believers, but it is our goal to rather live out the commands of Christ as explicitly as we can. This is the second reason that Gospel Sanctification is a fraud.
3. To begin with, the gospel is not about the cross in totality. The gospel means “good news.” Though the cross is very, very, good news, it is not the only good news Jesus spoke of. In fact, the herald of the beginning of His ministry was the following:
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Matthew 9:35
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.
The good news was not just the cross, it was also the kingdom. As a matter of fact, the kingdom was a dominate theme in the presentation of the gospel throughout the book of acts, and in some cases, mentioned as separate from Christ in the same presentation:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Acts 19:8
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25
“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Acts 28:31
Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even in the latter days just prior to the return of Christ, He said Himself,
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
The “good news” is not only concerning God’s Son (Romans 1:9). The gospel (good news) of His Son, is also the good news of the kingdom. It begs the question: have Reformed teachers frantically erected a cross-only “good news” in fear that a future kingdom with Jewish implications will be discovered in the Scriptures? Is the constant drumbeat of a cross-only gospel building a scriptural Dome on the Rock? But more to the point, wouldn’t a *living by the kingdom* be much more applicable than living by a narrow (but none the less profound) cross-only *good news*? In fact, a *living by the kingdom* seems to be the dominate theme of the Sermon on the Mount. If we are going to live “by” something, or “according” to something daily, why would it not be a kingdom mandate rather than a once and for all washing of the body? After all, Christ’s mandate for the church was not to make disciples who observe the gospel everyday, but rather those who observe “all that I have commanded” which is much more indicative of kingdom living than the continual revisiting of the death, burial, and resurrection, which is often spoken of as a foundation that we build on, and other times we are even exhorted not to continually lay the same foundation:
Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.
1 Corinthians 3:10
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:12
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
So, it is a pity that proponents of Gospel Sanctification do not at least propagate an implicit living *by* the gospel because it at least approaches Scriptural semblance. But then what does Michael Horton, Paul Tripp, John Piper, Tim Keller, and others mean when they speak of “living *by* the gospel”? It is simply the following:
1. The gospel is confined to the cross and finished work of Christ, there is no other *good news.*
2. We are sanctified by the “same” gospel that saved us.
3. We cannot not think that we are saved by “the gospel,” and then we can “move on to something else” [and I will give you three wild guesses as to what the “something else” is].
4. The Bible is a gospel narrative (only) that gives us the ability to continually revisit the gospel daily. As Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
Therefore, there will be a strong emphasis on teaching and preaching that focuses on the glory of God in the gospel only. Supposedly, meditating on various forms of the gospel and God’s glory from Scripture will change us “from the inside out.” There is no room here to discuss all of the various theories in regard to our supposed passive (obviously) participation in the sanctification process, but I can tell you that the teaching and preaching will be almost entirely vertical; and, all but completely void of practical application of biblical precepts. Think about it; what could you do to be saved? Well, if that same gospel sanctifies you, what can your participation be in the sanctification process? Not much. An excellent example of this is a book written by J.F. Strombeck in the forties entitled “Disciplined by Grace.” I believe that Jerry Bridges wrote a similar book entitled “The Discipline of Grace.” Strombeck’s book was a masterful work concerning the gospel of Christ and the glory of God, but the thesis of the book was that the realization of this is what disciplines us, not our own efforts. I would contend that it is both. At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death. I will often hear Christians rave about a certain teacher or preacher, and inform me that I “must run now and get this book.” On several occasions, I have told them to point out practical application of biblical precepts as taught in the book, and if they can, then I will buy it. Per the usual, their initial response is an emphatic “no problem.” But later, they come back surprised that the book is void concerning hands-on instruction.
So what? Well, the following from Luke 6:46-49 is the “so what?”:
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
First, we see that Christ expects to be Lord (master) in any legitimate relationship with Him. His question is obviously rhetorical. Because GS teachers despise any notion that we can colabor with God in sanctification, you can bet that they will not tolerate any inkling of what they perceive as self effort in justification. Therefore, repentance will often be conspicuously missing from their gospel presentations. As a result, you could well argue that they teach a false gospel based on this point alone:
Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [you must call on Him as “Lord”].
Acts 5:31
” He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus [note they “must” have faith and repentance both].
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Secondly, under “so what?“; Christ was also clear as to the ill effect on believers in regard to neglecting the art of applying God’s word to life in obedience:
“But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete” (Luke 6:49).
Therefore, those who sit under GS teachers receive a steady diet of the sweet stuff. It’s like the name of my favorite desert at Chilies: “Death by Chocolate.” Round-up a bunch of toddlers and feed them nothing but chocolate for two weeks and see what you get. It’s what the Neo-Reformed movement is looking like more and more as they are fed the unbalanced diet of the vertical only. Michael Horton’s favorite reference regarding biblical imperatives is, “it‘s just more bad news.” Really? To the contrary, an unbalanced diet of monergism in the sanctification process is really death by good news; what Jesus called a “complete destruction.”
paul
The Newest Fad Among Contemporary Antinomians: Skeletons
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist in essence, or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. This is nothing new for this doctrine. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ 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.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
paul
Why? Because Piper is an Antinomian, That’s Why
“Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybody’s mind?”
Well, I didn’t expect to be posting this topic this morning. I was perusing stuff from the 2010 Shepard’s Conference and saw something taught by a Mark MacArthur (Not John; who is he?). That really got my curiosity gong, so I googled the name. What I ended up seeing first was an article asking why John Piper invited Mark Driscoll to his 2008 Desiring God Conference. The answer was left open. It seems that nobody really knows the answer as to why; other than the explanation given by Piper himself, and that doesn’t seem to be good enough. But what shocked me was the discovery in the same article concerning a series John MacArthur did about a year ago in regard to Driscoll’s handling of the Song of Solomon. I was unaware of it, but it was surprisingly candid / scathing, and four parts long! The article also noted that MacArthur related his concerns to John Piper directly, and apparently, to no avail.
So why would John Piper associate with “Mark the cussing pastor,” and even invite him to speak at his Desiring God Conference? Well, we get a clue in another spectacle that occurred at the same conference, an interview with Paul David Tripp in which he relates having a cussing contest with his own children while in the family car. If you can still find the video, it has a lame disclaimer in the introduction claiming that Paul Tripp doesn’t condone cussing; he was only cussing, and encouraged his children to do so as well in order to make a point. The video even offended Steve Camp, who railed about it on his blog: http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/09/paul-tripp-ing-likes-to-say-s-word-has.html
But whether it’s Mac, or Camp, or all of the people who comment, they seem perplexed by this behavior and Piper’s indifference to the issue. Camp closed his scathing commentary with this comment:
“Anyone seen the real John Piper lately? If you do, tell him that he is missed and that we want to hear him just preach the Word again and leave behind his fascination with this high-school, emerging, juvenile, lascivious mentality once for all.”
This is what’s frustrating to me: I have seen the real John Piper for a long time, and I am really just a dumb hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio. Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybody’s mind? Piper has a problem with a Christian obligation to uphold the law. Christians are not listening to what he says in careful, studious, fashion. If Steve Camp would carefully examine the preaching from the John Piper who was supposedly missing while at his own conference, he will find a marvelous, masterful, exposition of God’s word; but strictly in vertical form. Piper’s teaching is all but completely void of instruction and practical application. His ability to proclaim the glory of God camouflages his plenary monergism, and his disdain for a synergistic approach to sanctification. As a matter of fact, like Paul David Tripp, he often cites Scripture that concerns our condition prior to salvation to make specific points about our walk with God as Christians. Like Tripp, he does not believe that we are anymore equipped to have a part in our sanctification than we were before justification. That is why Piper said in one sermon: “Never, never, never, never, separate the gospel from the sanctification process.” Do Christians really know what he is saying when he says those things?
Yes, yes, yes, I know, these guys believe in the upholding of the law; they just don’t believe that we can have a part in it, don’t miss that point. In the final analysis, it needs to be called what it is: antinomianism. You may not agree with me, but my premise certainly explains Piper’s indifference to the behavior of Mark Driscoll and Paul Tripp. John Piper has never been missing in my mind. And by the way, who is Mark MacArthur?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments