Horton’s Systematic Theology Adds To The Sonship/Gospel Sanctification Massive Subculter
[NOTE: This was written before I discovered that New Calvinism is in fact the same gospel that the Reformers taught. The resurgence movement began as COG in 1970, became Sonship circa 1986, Gospel Transformation in 2000, dubbed Gospel Sanctification by detractors in 2007, and finally New Calvinism in 2008. This was also written before I understood that orthodoxy is a part of spiritual caste in general].
“Gospel Sanctification, as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity” [Note also that I no longer equate “orthodoxy ” with truth per se].
[Further revision: much has been learned since this post, but the general idea is very accurate: the Neo-Calvinist movement is seeking to develop a subculture within American culture that will eventually, if all goes as planned, devour American culture as we know it. This is part and parcel with Calvinism’s dominion theology. This post submits a sketchy framework of useful categories under the general idea. For instance, one college that focuses strictly on the Neo-Calvinist vision is a far cry from the fact that this movement owns (in an intellectual capacity) most of the seminaries in America. Other categories could also be added.
The Fix is now in. The false doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology about thirty years ago—now has its own theology, hermeneutic, practical application, defined experience, ecumenical (inclusiveness) movement, history, college, counseling organization, missionary organization, Bible—and now, its own systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification (GS), as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity. It won’t be long; those who we minister to will have to be deprogrammed before we can help them, starting with convincing them that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from God as our authority for ministry and life. Not understanding GS beforehand will make any attempt to help people with the word of God—dead on arrival. GS
Theology
The movement started with a very powerful concept in the minds of its perpetrators. Supposedly, we grow spiritually by revisiting the gospel that saved us every day. Proponents were convinced (and still are) that this thesis stands alone as truth; therefore, all other propositions must bow to it.
The GS Hermeneutic
A literal interpretation of Scripture will continually contradict GS. So, the proponents have changed how we read/ interpret the Bible accordingly. The GS hermeneutic is an interpretive prism that will always yield results that make GS plausible. Unlike the rest of the elements (which are very contemporary), the hermeneutic (known as Biblical Theology or Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics) was borrowed from times past. It originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writings of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Graeme Goldsworthy tweaked the doctrine to facilitate COG, and today, Goldsworthy’s “Trilogy” is the pillar of interpretation within the movement.
Practical Application
The GS narrow approach to sanctification must be embellished and applicable to life in some way in order to be sold. This is Heart Theology, and was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary. In 1996, two former students of Powlison articulated Heart Theology in a book entitled, “How People Change.”
Defined Experience
John Piper seeks to articulate how Sonship is experienced via Christian Hedonism. Because GS makes our works and the work of the Spirit an either/or issue, someone needed to develop a thesis that explained how the difference can be ascertained. John Piper answered the call with the development of Christian Hedonism.
Ecumenical Bent
GS now encompasses any group that agrees with its primary view of plenary monergism and the synthesis of justification and sanctification. All other disciplines are seen as secondary and irrelevant to fellowship and joint ventures. The Gospel Coalition (holding national conferences on odd years, 2011, etc.), and T4G (Together For The Gospel, holding national conferences on even years) work together to promote GS/S while promoting inclusiveness among denominations and religions.
History
GS proponents claim a historical precedent dating back to Creation, and also claim to be the second part of the first Reformation. Of course, this is laughable. Sonship, the Antioch school, TGC, T4G, NCT, CH, and HT have no historical precedent prior to 1970. Many of the notable proponents of GS are associated in some way with the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Tim Keller and David Powlison were followers of Miller. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane are followers of David Powlison. Jerry Bridges attributes his view of the gospel to Miller as well.
College
The Antioch School of leadership training has GS as its foundation and basis for training. It is located in Ames, Iowa.
Counseling Organization
The upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition, which seeks to network other counseling organizations as well, is intimately associated with T4G and The Gospel Coalition. The who’s who of Gospel Sanctification sit on its governing board including David Powlison and Paul David Tripp.
Missionary Organization
It’s primary missionary organization was founded by the father of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship—Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Banner of Truth states the following in The Movement Called Sonship: “Miller encouraged New Life Presbyterian Church into originating the ‘World Harvest Mission’, a non-denominational missionary organization. Sonship became its main teaching vehicle.”
Bible
The English Standard Version (ESV) was first published by Crossway in 2001. Its vice president of editorial is Justin Taylor who also authors The Gospel Coalition Blog, the multimedia propaganda machine for GS doctrine. One of the translators was Wayne Grudem, also well known as a major proponent of GS doctrine. The ESV’s GS connection has made it the most purchased English Bible in the past ten years. The latest promotion of the ESV by Crossway, “Trusted: Trusted Legacy [a whopping ten years]; trusted By Leaders; Trusted For Life,” features an endorsement by the who’s who of GS doctrine.
The Complete Fix
With Michael Horton’s recent publication of “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way” (2011), the total fix is in place. The GS machine will now begin to move forward—rewriting and re-forming orthodox Christianity. I confidently predict that Horton’s book will be widely used in seminaries nationwide. Seminary students will be pumped into the local churches with a skewered view of truth—but using all of the same terminology that was formally orthodox.
What Can Be Done?
This doctrine thrives on the fact that Christians are theologically dumbed-down. If most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification (and they don’t), they are helpless against this false doctrine. If most Christians don’t realize the importance of understanding hermeneutics (and they don’t), they are even more helpless. Local churches need to start in-doctrine–ating their people.
paul
Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification: If it’s Both/and, He Doesn’t Say
I just finished Phillip Cary’s “Good News for Anxious Christians.” The book concerns what he calls, throughout the book, “the new evangelical theology.” According to Cary, this new theology creates unnecessary anxiety in and among Christians. He then cites ten “practical” things that the new evangelical theology says we should do that causes the anxiety, and why we really don’t need to do them, and thus eliminating the unnecessary angst. He also noted that this new theology damages Christians psychologically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually.
The book came to my attention when it was suggested to me that it was an apology against Gospel Sanctification. But when I did some research in regard to the author, it became apparent that he is an advocate of GS. This incited the following thought on my part: “Are there two GS camps?” So, when I encountered the following statement in the beginning of the book, I wasn’t surprised:
“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 posted a short article that focused on the one statement only: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/%E2%80%9Cthats-not-true%E2%80%9D-phillip-carys-gospel-sanctification-statement/
Nevertheless, other statements in the book seemed to be a direct protest against GS elements, though Cary does not specifically name what the “new evangelical theology” (hereafter “TNET”) is. The book was based on feedback he gets from his college students, so he is seeing the ground level effect of TNET firsthand. My strong suspicion is – he is seeing a variety unbiblical soundbites that Christians live by, but no doubt, some of them are spawns of the GS doctrine. So, what’s going on here?
I will summarize chapters in the book that clearly refute the GS doctrine, and chapters that hold the GS line, and then I will state my conclusions. As an aside, let me say that I believe chapter one addresses post-Christian thought (God speaks to us in small, still voices instead of Scripture, and we have to sort it out. Also see chapter 10), and not Gospel Sanctification. First, chapter three is a devastating argument against the GS tenets of Christ obeying for us, “yielding,” and the supposed evil of “trying to obey God by our own efforts.” It was also very confirming to hear from a well noted Christian thinker concerning the impact that this doctrine is having on people in real life. I was in a church that taught the GS doctrine, and Cary’s argumentative question on page 39 echoes the EXACT same question I often asked the leaders of that church: “…how do you know if you’re really letting God do it – or are you still just trying to do it in your own strength?” Cary then noted that the necessity of such a question is a “sign that something’s wrong.” However, before I continue, though they did not want to answer the question to me at the time, the answer is: when Christ is obeying for us, our response will be a “mere natural flow accompanied by overflowing joy” (ie., John Piper’s Christian Hedonism). They knew a truthful answer in accordance with the doctrine would have presented another caveat for debate / consideration.
Cary makes many powerful arguments against this notion in chapter three, including the following:
“At its sickest, the new evangelical theology is an attempt to deny the reality of God’s creation… [when God created the garden and put Adam there to maintain it – it was really Adam doing the work, not God] That’s what really happens when you get really serious about saying, ‘it wasn’t me; it was all God.’ This is a misunderstanding at best, a denial of the doctrine of creation at worst” (page 54).
Also, chapter three concludes with an orthodox statement that clearly propagates synergistic sanctification.
Throughout the book, Cary accuses TNET of implementing “either/or” when “both/and” should be applied. As one needs to note from our preceding consideration, to “obey in our own strength” implies that either your doing it, or God is, so if your at work, God isn’t. Cary states it this way:
“…in fact you’re always the one who’s doing it. The inner acts of your heart are always your own, even when they’re a result of God working in you.”
Cary then applies this to another one of his contentions in chapter five; specifically, the “either/or” application to love and duty (classic John Piper), or the same application to love and motives (classic Francis Chan). It is more than fair to say that Cary’s contention on page 86 could apply directly to John Piper’s Christian Hedonism:
“An especially twisted way of misdirecting our attention is to preach that we should do good things out of love, not duty. It’s perverse, in the first place, because people who genuinely love their neighbors are eager to do their duty – to keep their promises and obligations, for example – since this binds them to their neighbor’s and is therefore one of the most important ways of seeking their neighbor’s good. So people who love are people who do their duty. It’s clearly a both/and, not an either/or. And they’re strongly motivated to do their duty, rather than being motivated by the desire to be such loving people. That desire would twist their motivation back toward themselves – making it a concern for their own self-image, rather than for their neighbor’s good.”
Exactly. Love seeks the “good” or what’s best for our neighbor, regardless of how we feel about whatever we have to do to accomplish that. Also, as Cary notes, a concern about how we feel when we love makes it about us and introspection concerning our motives, not love. If Piper hears about this line of thought, he will have to take another sabbatical.
Chapters six and seven are a spot-on, biblical view of the relationship between feelings, love, and obedience. However, I will say that although the thoughts are very biblical, it’s peculiar that very few Scripture verses are cited in comparison to the volume of information, and the few verses that are cited do not reference or compliment any of the strong points. It is more than fair to say that this chapter is abundant fodder for a treatise against Christian Hedonism, but I have no idea whether that tenet of GS is what Cary would consider part of TNET. And before I get too far ahead, I might mention that chapter four strongly emphasizes the application of biblical imperatives to life, and the importance of “finding wisdom, and what is good, in the commandments of God” [paraphrase].
With that said, chapters nine and ten are right out of the Gospel Sanctification play-book, complete with a purely redemptive-historical viewpoint of the Scriptures and the dissing of practical application (but chapter seven is the epitome of practical application!). Page 167 seems to bolster the GS tenet of the total depravity of the saints, and also adding the following on page 168:
“On the other hand, if you want to be merciful and give people good news [ie., the gospel], you have to start by teaching them how to be sinners.”
Yikes! Do we really want our preaching to focus on getting Christians to see themselves as “sinners”!? Just about everywhere you poke chapters nine and ten, you get sanctification as justification:
“There’s no escaping the trap [of practical application] unless you believe that Christ came to save sinners and that includes you.”
Let me pause here and clarify something; when evangelicals talk about practical application, they are referring to “hear[ing] these words of mine and putting them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
Chapter nine is also heavy on the whole GS Bible as gospel narrative motif in which our goal is to “put ourselves in the narrative” rather than to “take something out” for practical application (see this post:
Lastly, though Cary emphasizes synergistic sanctification throughout the book, he also advocates the idea that the Scriptures are “the gospel” and “the gospel is not about what we do, but about what Christ does.” So in regard to the Scriptures and the use thereof, this seems to be the “either/or” approach that he disses elsewhere. There is also a very strong flavor of Michael Horton’s concept of, “trying to represent Christ with good behavior is an attempt to be the gospel rather than presenting the gospel.”
There is simply no doubt: Cary is presenting two distinct, opposing views in the same book with no logical conclusions connecting the two. Is it “both/and,” or “either/or”? He doesn’t say. However, his GS model, unlike the other camp, would NOT include New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, monergistic sanctification as the only true gospel (he just thinks it’s serious error), and Heart Theology (Cary believes change is effected by outside influences as well as inside influences). But, like the other camp, it would include the total depravity of the saints, and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic (all Scripture is about the gospel only). Other elements are inconclusive because of the contradictory concepts presented in the book (for instance, is the end-game of his model antinomianism? And, are saints totally depraved and spiritually dead, or just totally depraved?). Again, several elements are inconclusive because of the discontinuity between ideas in the book.
I will conclude by taking a stab at this. I think Cary is orthodox in most of his views concerning sanctification and offers brilliant insight into the subject as well. In fact, I will be using a lot of his material from this book at a men’s fellowship this month. But, is this a case in which Cary is enamored by the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and is just cramming it in to his perspective come heck or high water? It reminds me of watching football with Susan. She just can’t understand those runs where the running back goes crashing into the line for zero gain: “Why do they do that?! Run around them! That’s stupid! Well, Phillip Cary is far from being stupid, of course, but there is simply no connection of thought between his contradictory positions, which is strange. It seems like it would be easy enough to articulate a model that would be “both/and” like love and duty are both/and.
It would be an erroneous model, but he could have at least done that.
paul
“Slave”: Bad Company Corrupts Good Theology
For many years John MacArthur’s teachings from the Bible have had a tremendous impact on my life. I always received his teachings as well balanced between showing God’s greatness and sovereignty, imparting encouragement, and teaching practical application. He also did a great job of relating how the Christian walk is experienced in real life. Certainly, I have never deemed his teachings as “not vertical enough.” But trust me, his latest book, “Slave” is plenty vertical. In recent years, I have noticed a considerable decrease of practical application in MacArthur’s teachings, and “Slave” is no exception.
The back cover states the following by way of introduction: “A cover-up of biblical proportions. Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it’s been purposely hidden and covered up ever since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover-up!
In this book, John MacArthur unveils the essential and clarifying revelation that may be keeping you from a fulfilling-and correct-relationship with God. It’s powerful. It’s controversial. And with new eyes you’ll see the riches of your salvation in a radically new way.
What does it mean to be a Christian the way Jesus defined it? MacArthur says it all boils down to one word: SLAVE.”
In fact, the book is an awesome resource, probably THE resource, in showing the true significance, as stated in the Bible, regarding our slave / Lord relationship with Christ. MacArthur begins by giving a detailed historical account of how “bond slave” was re-translated as “[hired] servant” with much lighter implications for seeing our true relationship with the Savior. MacArthur then proceeds to to give an in-depth historical account of slavery during biblical times and how the prophets, the apostles, and Christ used that contemporary reality to illustrate truth about redemption and our relationship with the lord.
As an aside, if you have ever wrestled with the question of ecclesiastical authority verses the authority of Scripture, note pages 60-68. Good stuff, and it will put that question to bed.
A huuuuuuge portion of the book is about God’s sovereignty in justification and sanctification. Got any friends you want to convert to Calvinism? It is one of the most painstaking apologies for Calvinism that I have ever read.
So, after the excellent historical case and roughly 150 pages of monergism, MacArthur got into some practical application on page 183; slaves will be judged based on their performance at the judgment seat of Christ. A great motivation to partake in the “O” word. And then it happened; on page 186, he quotes none other than John Piper. As much as I love MacArthur, he just drives me nuts when he does that. Why? Well, a major theme throughout the book is the biblical concept of being set free from the slavery of sin and made free in slavery to Christ. Piper believes the exact opposite! Piper states the following in “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).”
Notice Piper quotes Romans 6:17 to make his point about “our” nature and: “We” [are]. Romans 6:17 reads as follows:
“But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.”
Piper uses the Romans passage, which is clearly in the past tense, to teach that Christians are still enslaved to sin. He routinely gets a pass on this sort of thing. Furthermore, Mac quotes Piper twice in the book (page 207 also) for good measure in his endeavor to heap creditability on Piper who also contradicts another major theme in the book; specifically, that we must accept the whole person of Christ which is Lord and Savior. Piper believes the following:
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
MacArthur also wrote a glowing forward in Piper’s book, “Desiring God” despite the fact that the book contains outrageous statements by Piper:
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
Hence, creepy similarities to Piper’s theology appear in “Slave,” especially Pipers belief that true Christian obedience is always experienced as an unhesitating, natural response accompanied by joy. Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled.” On page 208, he describes our experience as slaves to Christ as “not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.” This, despite what the apostle John clearly experienced as recorded in Revelation. But regardless of the fact that there is nothing sweeter than being a slave of Christ, to suggest that our experience is never mixed with bitterness (taste, not attitude) is just plain nonsense. A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. Also, even though I realize the importance of joy in the Christian life, I make this observation in “Another Gospel” (page 78):
“Only problem is, among many, is the eleventh chapter of Hebrews contradicts everything in Piper’s statement above. Hebrews 11 is one of the more extensive statements on saving faith in Holy writ. The Hebrew writer defines the faith of at least twenty believers in regard to the decisions they made and obedience. Joy or pleasure, even pleasure in God, is not named once as being an attribute of their faith. The only semblance of feelings or emotions mentioned is that of strife and fear of God more than man. The truth of Hebrews 11, as well as many other Scriptures, makes a mockery of Piper’s theory of Christian hedonism.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
12 comments