Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 1
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful; it’s about time antinomians of our day have to answer the charge. But have you ever heard the theory by psychologist that serial criminals want to be caught? In regard to applying the same theory to the serial antinomians of our day, I have to think the theory has merit.
Consider what has happened this week. A writer for “Pyromaniacs,” a blog authored by Phil Johnson, (an associate of John MacArthur Jr.), wrote a six-page open letter to Micheal Horton and others at the “White Horse Inn,” another blog of the Reformed sort. Horton responded to the open letter by denying that he was an antinomian while defending another proponent of gospel sanctification / Sonship theology who had supposedly been accused as well by pastor Jason Hood, via an article Hood wrote in Christianity Today. A rough week for antinomians, supposedly.
But the fact that Horton responded to the open letter as if it was an accusation that he is antinomian – is surprising because it would take at least five attorneys to interpret the letter that way, if in fact it was an accusation of antinomianism to begin with; I certainly didn’t take it that way.
So why did Horton respond that way? See, it’s true; deep down, they want to get caught. Horton initially defended himself in the first paragraphs of his response, but then toyed with his “accuser” by dropping in clues as to what they should really be accusing him of: antinomianism based on his doctrine! After his defense, his suggested cure for antinomianism was “more gospel”(hint, hint). So after denying that he’s antinomian, he actually launched into a full-blown antinomian doctrine! I will dissect his response in part 2, but in essence, he said “more justification in sanctification.” I posed this question in the comment section and expect it will never get out of moderation purgatory:
“Dr Horton: or anyone else,
If we are sanctified by justification, and we don’t have a role in justification, how can we have a role in our sanctification? And if we can’t have a role in our sanctification, isn’t that antinomianism by default? I don’t have to obey / I can’t obey. What’s the difference?”
But it gets better. In the other article Horton complains about, Hood doesn’t accuse the new pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian (the late James D. Kennedy’s church) of antinomianism, but rather only complains that Tullian Tchividjian bragged about being an antinomian! See, again, Tchividjian is another example of a serial antinomian who wants to get caught; so he bragged about being an antinomian. However, it didn’t work.
Will the Keystone Discernment Police ever figure it out? Stay tuned. But meanwhile, here’s another clue for Team Pyro: you don’t need six pages – you only need six words; “How is progressive justification not antinomianism?
paul
A Reader’s Fair Question: What are the Goals of Your Blog Regarding Gospel Sanctification?
Another interesting article, Paul.
These things you write keep leaving me wondering: how are you hoping to help the Evangelical community to stop going the wrong way and start going the right way? How many read your posts? What impact are your posts having? Finally, what are you doing outside of your posts to help? What, if anything, is effective?
Good questions Tad, I’m glad you asked:
The doctrine is the epitome of boiling a frog slowly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). Its covert nature is truly over the top. I sat under it for six years, and knew something didn’t seem right, but couldn’t put my finger on it. The doctrine’s framework has all the orthodox labels, but it redefines the essentials: justification, sanctification, repentance, obedience etc. It synthesizes justification and sanctification, changes repentance into “deep repentance,” and changes obedience into “new obedience.” Interestingly, though I’m sure its proponents don’t have regular meetings, there is a common thread among them: they avoid labels like the plague. It goes along with a deep-seated mentality that to accept a label is to acquiesce to some idea that their doctrine has not been the truth since the beginning.
So, this brings me to answering your first question. An enemy (the doctrine) cannot be defeated until you put a face on it. My primary goal right now is to label this hideous doctrine “Gospel Sanctification,” AND, to promote the idea that GS is, in fact, Antinomianism. Also interesting: when you talk to its proponents directly, and use that term, they don’t blink for a second – they know exactly what you are talking about, but they themselves never use the term, never. I might add that they fear the term and actually despise it for whatever reasons. A good example of this is the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa. When I called them, my first question was, “are you, and your school, proponents of Gospel Sanctification?” Shockingly, the representative of the school answered with a simple “yes.” Somewhat taken aback, I continued: “uh, in other words, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” His answer? “Yes.”
Let me interject some simplicity here. The gospel is the good news about justification / justification is monergistic / if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, sanctification is also monergistc / if sanctification is monergistic, that eliminates any use or application of the Law (or Scripture as a whole) in the sanctification process / that’s Antinomianism. By the way, I will soon be doing a series on the Antinomianoch School in Ames, Iowa.
Secondly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better and better at articulating this doctrine in understandable ways while embracing the daunting task of not looking like I’m “dissing the gospel,” a smoke screen that serves its proponents in grand fashion. Men such as Jay Adams even recognize the difficulty in articulating a description of this doctrine.
Thirdly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better equipped men (than me) off their asses to do something about this problem. I think my frustration may be reflected in the prior sentence. The doctrine is blatant Antinomianism invirtue of its premise, and needs to be stopped.
Fourthly, in regard to your first question, I intend to continually challenge better equipped teachers than I to stop loving their relationships with the who’s who of Evangelicalism more than the truth. I will also challenge them to love the truth more than the credibility of their diplomas. If their alma maters are propagating a false doctrine – love the truth more than your diploma.
Now in regard to your second question: I resolved in my heart long ago to do my best to write about this doctrine, no matter how many read my blog, until better equipped men address this problem. I have other goals in life; such as, I would like to go back to school and focus on counseling. With that said, the blog is experiencing a significant increase in readership (well more than double from the blogs conception in August of last year). But, it is what it is, and though the readership does number in the thousands, it just doesn’t matter, somebody has to speak-up any way they can.
Now your third question, “impact.” Five individuals have contacted me directly and said something like this: “Some time ago, our leadership seemed to be taking a different direction. I knew there was something wrong, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.” The blog, and my book, which was a huge struggle for a layman such as myself (my thanks to those who helped, especially my daughter, Heather), supplied them with an understanding of the doctrine’s major tenets and ramifications. I would also be remiss in not mentioning the fact that at least one church has reversed course in response to a parishioner confronting the leadership using materials from this blog. I think it’s a joke that my book is the only work out there on GS. As I work on the second addition which will focus more on the Antinomian aspect of GS, I continue to pray for others to respond as well. Regarding impact, there is some hint of a very capable person writing a book about the doctrine with my book as a “starting point.” That is what I would consider to be a significant impact.
Furthermore, I suspect many more people have made use of the blog that have not contacted me. From time to time, I will get a flurry of hits from a specific community for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that it is parishioners trolling the web trying to figure out what the heck is going on in their church. When this happens, they are getting my three years of research dropped in their lap. Amen, couldn’t make me happier.
Lastly, outside of my blog, I am working on the second edition of my book, which I lose money on, and I write letters to prominent Evangelical leaders asking them to not associate with proponents of GS because it lends credibility to the doctrine. For example, I will soon be writing a letter to Al Mohler. I am going to ask him as a fellow Southern Baptist to not attend, nor speak at the 2011 “Together for the Gospel” conference, or T4G. This conference always features the who’s who of Gospel Sanctification, and like the Antioch School, is a major promoter of the doctrine. At some point, all of the letters I have written will be posted on my blog as a testimony to the fact that many of these men really don’t care about the truth, and only listen to those who they see as on par with their own greatness.
Effectiveness? Don’t know, but this I do know: this doctrine will eventually produce something really stupid that people will have to take note of. Because the doctrine has no face yet, its direct cause in situations like Coral Ridge are going unnoticed, but that will change. Also, this doctrine has had very ill effects in the area of counseling, and I have warned certain organizations by letter accordingly. But nothing is being done because when it gets right down to it, they don’t care. What matters is who they play golf with, who writes the forwards in their books, and who’s lunching with them at Applebees during the next scheduled conference.
Blessings to you Tad, and btw, I am still working through the materials you have sent me and have some returns.
Your brother,
paul
What Really Happened at Coral Ridge: Heavy-Handed Leadership is Part of the Gospel Sanctification Mystique
I have plowed through massive amounts of data / articles regarding the Coral Ridge Presbyterian split / controversy, and wow, what a gargantuan mass of theories, opinions, and “he said – she said.” But what happened at Coral Ridge is really very simple, and is being played out throughout the country on a continual basis. Actually, in all the information I consumed, the crux of the matter can be boiled down to a few excerpts.
First, the key to understanding what happened there is the theology of the new pastor, Tullian Tchividjian, hereafter referred to as “TT” (who in the world would ever name their child Tullian Tchividjian?). TT is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification, hereafter referred to as “GS.” One writer refuted an accusation against TT (by one person in the small group of dissenters who tried to have him expelled as the pastor) that he has a distorted view of the gospel. But in supposedly refuting that, he quotes TT as saying the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
In this quote, we see the theology of GS and why it caused big trouble at Coral Ridge. Notice that TT says plainly that he has come to a scriptural understanding of the gospel that “the vast majority of professing Christians” don’t share. Think about that statement, I mean really think about it. He is saying that he was once among “the vast majority of *professing* [that word is no accident] Christians” who HAVE THE GOSPEL WRONG! This is the mentality of GS proponents: they think they are on the cutting edge of a reformation that is saving Evangelicalism from a false gospel. What else can be surmised from this statement?
As a result, leaders in the GS movement do not intend to play nicely with papal minions of the Synergistic Dark Age, and they routinely kick butt and take names. The pattern is the same: new pastors assume leadership in a church that doesn’t know what GS is, and the church takes it for granted that their theology is orthodox. Then once in, they replace present leadership with those of like mind, and begin to make vast and rapid changes because they see that church as a bastion of falsehood. Then, dissenters are mercilessly mowed down and muzzled, usually via church discipline.
In all cases, the dissenters don’t have a full understanding of what they are dealing with, they just know something isn’t right. I saw this exact same GS pattern play out in a church in Dayton, Ohio, and it’s also exactly what happened at Coral Ridge. My thoughts on this were confirmed by a telephone interview with a person involved with the protesters at Coral Ridge. However, the particular church in Dayton didn’t have the ecclesiastical safeguards afforded Presbyterians, and some dissenting members actually fled to other states because of the intensity of the backlash from the GS leadership, and trust me, I’m not exaggerating. Other Christians have told me that their leaders simply refuse to discuss the issue with them, rightly observing that there is no premise for agreement when one party holds to a grammatical view of interpretation verses redemptive.
Before I move on, some of what I am saying here can be seen in the letter that Coral Ridge dissenters issued to the rest of the congregation in an attempt to have TT removed as their pastor: http://blackandwhiteministries.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-pastors-daughter-raises-mutiny.html
In conclusion, much of the GS doctrine can be seen in TT’s statement if one observes closely and believes that words mean things. Instead of moving on to “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded,” we are supposed to move “more deeply” into the gospel. GS teaches that a deeper focus on the gospel results in Christ obeying biblical imperatives for us. TT has also insinuated this in other statements. You can also see the GS element of continual redemption (or the idea that Christians are continually re-saved) in this part of his statement:
“After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel” [then what do you do with John 13:8-10 ?].
Furthermore, the gospel is monergistic, so if we are sanctified by the gospel, that means we can do no more to be sanctified than we could do to be justified. Therefore, GS can be nothing more than a *let go and let God* theology. Also, the relationship or role of the Law would be the same, making it an Antinomian doctrine. Not being obligated to keep the Law or completely unable is the same difference.
paul
Jesus Obeys For Us? Is That What We Really Believe?
“The fact that Christians buy into ‘the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,’ is just plain embarrassing.”
I guess the belief sweeping through Christendom that saints are unable to participate in the sanctification process is just fine with everybody. Also, we know that Christ died for our sins, but did he also live on earth for our works in sanctification? Was one of the primary purposes of His first appearing to fulfill the Law for us, and thereby nullifying a necessity to uphold the Law in the sanctification process by us? That seems like a major doctrinal angle to me with serious consequences regarding life application. But hey, I guess that’s just me. This neo-Reformed doctrine can be seen clearly in a recent post by Justin Taylor entitled “Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities” on his “Between Two Worlds” blog. The title of his blog is a reference to the Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos. “Biblical Theology” is an interpretive process initiated by an eighteenth century liberal named Johann Philipp Gabler, who emphasized interpretation based on Historicism as opposed to dogma (ideas drawn from the text using literal interpretation). Vos supposedly took Gabler’s concept in a more conservative direction. Supposedly.
Obviously, all of the grammatical commands in the Bible with the saints being the object of the action (God commanding) is a serious problem for those who propagate this neo-Reformed doctrine, sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. Hence, the post by Taylor (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/03/imperatives-indicatives-impossibilities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Netvibes ), that states that all commands in the Bible are preceded by a historical account of God performing the foundation of the command beforehand. In other words, we are not really obeying, we are merely displaying the obedience of Christ, who obeys for us. The only problem is the following: to suggest that this is a consistent grammatical pattern throughout the New Testament is an insult to any intelligence one might possess. Throughout the NT, God also makes His actions contingent on our obedience. The fact that Christians buy into “the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,” is just plain embarrassing. I address this in one of the chapters of my book:
Click to access essay%2011.PDF
The link is the specific excerpt, and catalogs many examples.
In this particular post, Taylor also displays the attitude among GS advocates that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, and invariably on a mission from God to save the church from orthodox evangelicalism:
“The problem with the typical evangelical motivation toward radical or sacrificial living is that ‘imperatives divorced from indicatives become impossibilities’ (to quote Tullian Tchividjian). Or another way that Tullian puts it: ‘gospel obligations must be based on gospel declarations.’
This ‘become what you are’ way of speaking is strange for many us. It seems precisely backward. But we must adjust our mental compass in order to walk this biblical path and recalibrate in order to speak this biblical language.”
In addition, the post is very insightful because several GS cronies comment in unguarded fashion. How this theology fleshes itself out in real life can be ascertained by the many comments (which had to be closed due to the number of Kool-Aid drinkers rushing the alter to drink from the vat).
“Alex” said: “I hear Tim Keller doing this a lot in his preaching. He will often organize his message around, “Here’s what you need to do, but you’re not doing it and in fact you can’t do it. You will never be able to do this until you see what Christ has done/who Christ has made you”.
“Mike” said: “….And all along they’ve been doing it in their own strength, because no one tells them they can rest in the finished work of Christ: both His passive obedience on the Cross and, as Chad mentioned, His active obedience throughout the 33 years before the Cross.”
Is that true? In the sanctification process, are we to “rest”? And are we to totally rest in what Christ has already done in our place? Remember, Alex also said that it is not us doing it [the obedience], and we couldn’t, even if we wanted to. To exert effort is to do it in our “own strength” (Mike).
Chad Bresson, another advocate of GS and a Christian mystic / blogger, further propagates the whole “Jesus obeys for us” idea in his comment on the same post:
“I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.”
Bresson’s comment concerning Christ’s “imputed active obedience “ should need no explanation in regard to what he is saying.
Other disturbing elements of GS can be seen in a comment by “Bruce” who reiterates the GS belief that there is no difference between justification and sanctification, and that we are “justified” every time Christ does not obey for us- via our confession:
“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. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!”
However, in all of the comments that were made, there was one voice of sanity that arose. Though I doubt the individual realizes the gravity of this false, antinomian doctrine; what he said, he said well, and I will use it for my conclusion. “Andrew” said the following:
“To be honest, at least in Reformed circles, I find that there is an equally large problem of total fear of ever trying to live in a godly way. No one would express it like this, of course, but the “I don’t want to work my way to righteousness” attitude means that almost any time a pastor doesn’t mention the gospel before he mentions godly living, the Reformed community jumps on him for it.
And of course there is something very right about this. But if I’m pasturing a church where I have been faithful to proclaim our total dependence on Christ’s righteousness in the gospel and I’m preaching through James, can’t I pound on the need to live a godly life? And here is exactly the problem: there are real parts of Scripture that simply don’t expound the indicative first.
For that matter, imagine that James was a Reformed blogger and wrote his letter as a blog entry first. Can you imagine the fury of the rest of the Reformed bloggers? “There is not nearly enough gospel in here, James! How can you expect us to live godly lives when you’ve given us no gospel?!?! Justification by works? Are you mad?!?!”
Now I don’t think that James and Paul are contradictory. But I do think that this statement: “This is not how Paul and the other New Testament writers motivated the church in light of the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. They did give imperatives (=what you should do), but they do so only based on indicatives (=what God has done).” is mostly true, but overstated.”
(Andrew Faris blog: http://www.christiansincontext.org/ )
P.S. to Andrew,
Andrew,
They believe that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment