James 2:14-17: Prayer Without Works; That Was Easy!
A typical Christian prayer meeting is scary these days: “Pray for Molly, she’s afraid to leave her house.” “Pray for Bob and Darcy, they are going through a divorce.” “Pray for Joe, a guy I work with, the doctor just told him he has 2 weeks to live.” And my all-time favorite, the “unspoken” prayer request. A revealed list of those would be interesting.
James said the following in 2:14-17;
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”
Whenever I read this verse, I am reminded of a married couple who went to their pastor for counseling because their marriage was on the rocks. The pastor told them the following: “We are going to pray about this, and after one week if you still think you need counseling, I will counsel you.” And shazaam! God answered their prayer! The marriage was healed! Not really, the spouse who didn’t want counseling became a super-spouse to avert the counseling. Eventually, they divorced.
In regard to Molly, if we only pray for her and do not also meet her needs with the word of God, is that like pronouncing a blessing on someone who needs food and warm clothing without meeting their physical needs? Absolutely. James used this as an example to illustrate faith that is worthless. By the same token, to only pray for a person to whom something can be done is also worthless.
Undoubtedly, this mentality comes from inept leadership, ignorance in regard to the sufficiency of Scripture, and spiritual laziness; getting involved in people’s lives can be hard work and very messy. Therefore, in many cases, prayer has become the sanctified Staples’ easy button. Just pray for ’em; “that was easy!” (and plus, it makes us feel like we really care). It is also indicative of the huge disconnect between what we claim to believe in Scripture and our willingness to apply it to life. Matthew 4:4 says that man only finds true life in every word that comes forth from the mouth of God. Ephesians 1:19,20 says we have the same power from God that raised Christ from the grave, but yet, we think the only thing we can do is pray for Molly.
But leadership is probably the primary problem. I have been to pastor’s conferences and listened to leaders brag about “not being distracted from the ‘gospel’ by counseling.” Gag me, gag me, gag me, as if the world is going to be interested in a god that doesn’t have anymore answers for living life than Opera Winfrey. 1Peter 3:15 says to always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask about the hope we have as Christians. The implication by Peter is that they see something in our lives that provoke them to ask. Whatever it is that they see, it doesn’t come from pushing our way through life with a spiritual easy-button.
paul
The Gospel Onslaught Against Discipleship
Meet Jim. He is in the midst of a very disturbing problem that torments him day and night, the kind of problem he never dreamed would inflict a believer. But he often says to himself: “maybe I’m not a believer after all.” In desperation he went to his pastor for help. His pastor seemed shocked and perplexed in regard to the revelation, and suggested that they pray about it (James 2:15-17). But Jim had already been praying intensely for many days with no end to the problem in sight.
Now we find Jim at a larger Baptist church on a Sunday morning; “more resources to help people” had been the reasoning that brought him there. He walks into the spacious foyer and peruses the many well-dressed people engaged in pleasant conversation. As he works his way through the crowd, he scans the faces of many people walking about while looking for something in their demeanor that would indicate that they could help. He then walks up to the Information table and opens a brochure about the church. He reads the information regarding the pastoral staff and wonders to himself: “Can these men help? Do they know what God would say about my situation? And if they can, will they have time? After all, they look like very important men and are probably very busy.”
Then Jim hears a call to worship through the elegant glass doors between the foyer and the large sanctuary. The sanctuary has a pricey, new, and contemporary feel which is impressive, but does little to arouse a glimmer of hope that Jim is looking for. Jim suffers through the praise music that lifts up the God that seems so far away from him, and anxiously awaits the sermon which may convey the answers he is looking for. The message is about the gospel. Is this what Jim needs? “Perhaps,” Jim thinks. “Maybe I missed something the first time; I certainly don’t feel saved!” But Jim has re-examined his original commitment to Christ and what he believed over and over again. Not only that, when he relocated from New York, he didn’t tell his present church that he was a Christian, but made a new profession of faith and was baptized, just to make sure. Jim gets in his car to go back to the chamber of dread he calls home, and as he watches the cheerful parishioners leaving for their own destinations, he wonders: “Why can’t I be like them? Whats wrong with me?”
Even as a new believer I found it bazarre: the whole evangelical mentality of “get people to come to church so we can get them saved” routine; it just didn’t jive with everything I was learning in the Scriptures as a new believer. Getting people saved was all that mattered while members in “good standing” were living with others out-of wedlock, and Christian couples who were married talked to their pets with more respect than they did each other. My first Halloween party as a Christian was also a dose of reality as I arrived at the church dressed like Moses holding a wooden image of the Ten Commandments, only to be mocked by vampires and werewolves. But most telling was the time I led a married couple / schizophrenics to the Lord and demanded that they be baptized and accepted into membership the following Sunday. The church reluctantly agreed, but I was approached by the church leadership afterward who stated the following: “Now that they are saved, we need to send them away where they can get help.”
This “gospel only, bag-em and tag-em (sanctifi-what?),” mentality that began in the 1950’s started to see the chickens coming home to roost around the time I got saved in 1983. Christians were not looking to the church to solve any of life’s deep problems, but were gathering at the well of philosophy with the rest of the world while chanting “all truth is God’s truth.” That’s when Dave Hunt published his book entitled, “The Seduction of Christianity” which sent shock-waves throughout the Evangelical community. While his book was a huge, and necessary challenge (he refuted the idea that Sigmund Freud was smarter than the Holy Spirit), it only stated the problem and offered no specific solutions.
How to use the Bible to help Christians with deep problems came via Dr. Jay Adams in the early 1970’s, but his biblical approach didn’t really pick-up steam until the 80’s. Barely anybody who is aware of the impact that this biblical counseling / discipleship approach had on the church will call it anything less than a reformation. But what was the church’s response to this rediscovering of biblical sanctification? While the first gospel wave made so much of salvation that sanctification was forgotten, the second wave claims that salvation and sanctification are the same thing. If you can’t beat-em, join-em together. Hence: “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” “So brother, you really think you’re saved by the gospel and then you move on to something else?” [envision person saying that with knowing smirk on their face].
Either way, the results are the same. The church wants to sell the idea that God has the power to save our souls, but He can’t save a marriage; the idea that he can save schizophrenics, but must leave them in their present condition (First wave). Or, the idea that mediation on the gospel alone empowers the Christian for holy living (Second wave). Trust me, the world ain’t buyin’. Christians should get a grip because “gospel” means “good news.” “News” means the same thing in the Greek as it does in English: it’s something that you hear that you haven’t heard before; once you embrace it as your own, it’s no longer “news.” This would seem fairly obvious. Furthermore, 2Corinthians 5:18-21 makes it clear that the gospel is a ministry of “reconciliation” entrusted to those who are already reconciled. Therefore, if we are already reconciled, do we “move on to something else?” Absolutely, and please take Jim with you.
paul
Do You Misrepresent Obedience? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian: Part 2
“Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us.”
In part one, we looked at how teachers misrepresent the Pharisees as those who were proficient in upholding God’s word “outwardly.” Supposedly, the Pharisees were impressive in regard to their ability to do that, but only received condemnation from Christ as a result. The conclusion of the matter? You can’t please God by “trying” to keep the Law. And in almost every case where this thesis is presented in a sermon or Bible lesson the following is also continually emphasized: “You can’t be saved by keeping the Law.” This confuses the role of the Law in justification verses sanctification.
We also looked at the fact that the basis of this proposition is erroneous. The Lord’s primary beef with the Pharisees was not their “efforts” to keep the Law, but the fact that they modified the Law of God to fit their man-made traditions and rules (Mark 7:8-13). We will now look at the other erroneous part of this assertion; namely, efforts at keeping the Law are always an outward affair. In other words, obedience pertains to the outward only; so, because the Pharisees supposedly focused on obedience to the Law, they were only “cleaning the outside of the cup,” and were “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” And since (don’t miss this) inside change is such a complex affair, we can’t “reduce the Bible to a bunch of do’s and dont’s,” and “live our lives by lists.” So then, since *all change* is from the “inside out,” and Christ is the one who changes us, what follows is many theories on how that happens.
And trust me, the theories are not in short supply. They mostly entail being wowed by who Christ is as a person which is learned from the scriptures and general revelation (creation). Therefore, change by enamoration; when we realize how awesome Christ is and what He has done for us, joyful obedience naturally follows without any effort on our part. There is also “intelligent repentance” which is a complex system of discovering sin in our heart. When we discover sin deep in our heart, and repent of it through prayer, our heart is emptied of sin, leaving a void which Christ fills with Himself, resulting in Him obeying for us. There is also the inside change by prayer only angle as well.
The above theories propagate the idea that obedience has no curative value and is merely a natural result (and therefore essentially outward) of something more complex; Christians have swallowed this concept hook, line, and sinker. However, biblical obedience is both inside and outside, and Christ rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting inside obedience; that is what He meant by accusing them of being whitewashed tombs. Let me explain. In Matthew 23:23-28, Christ confronts the Pharisees with both examples of the whitewashed tomb and cup that is only clean on the outside.
But first, in verse 23, it is very apparent that He chides them because they “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” These have to do with attitudes. At least one, mercy, is among the beatitudes listed at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount by Christ, and the other two have similar implications among the other eight beatitudes. In regard to the cup illustration, Christ said the Pharisees were “full of greed and self-indulgence.” Outwardly, they put on a show to appear righteous to others (so they probably didn’t even obey outwardly when in private), but on the inside of the cup they were greedy (selfish) and self-serving. This isn’t rocket science; for example, I was very comfortable on Susan’s couch last night while watching my favorite show on the Fox News Channel. Then Susan came into the dinning area (which is open to the family room), and started clearing off the table to get it ready to be set for me and four others. That’s when the Holy Spirit kicked me in the conscience and I was either going to die to self (obey) or not. My outward obedience in helping her set the table began with inward obedience. And by the way, she could have probably cared less if I helped or not; I did it to please Christ.
In verses 27 and 28, Christ uses the same kind of illustration (whitewashed tombs) regarding the fact that the Pharisees were full of “lawlessness” on the inside. In other words, their minds / thoughts were saturated with things like lust, covetousness, and revenge while being concerned with outward appearances to impress others (motives). One of the primary reasons God judged the Earth via the flood was the rampant lawlessness of the mind (Genesis 6:5). The fact that God calls for an inward obedience to Godly thinking is clear. Paul said in 2Corinthians 10:5 that we are to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
In addition, it is important to note that inside obedience and outside obedience work together to bring about change. Change is impossible without the inside work of the Holy Spirit, but *all* change is not from the inside out, it’s *both.* The Holy Spirit is our “helper,” and he helps us with our role in the sanctification process: inside and outside obedience (John 14:12-17). Regarding the fact that inside and outside obedience work together for change, let me illustrate. Here is what Christ said in Matthew 6:19-21:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The counsel from Christ to store up treasure in heaven rather than on Earth is imperative and precedes the location of our heart. Stop investing on Earth, start investing in Heaven. It’s a matter of investment; where we invest is where our hearts will be. Is it not obvious that many marriages have come to ruin because one or both spouses invested in a career rather than each other? We also see this in one of Paul’s imperatives: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Ie., stop investing in evil, start investing in good. Cling to the one and neglect the other. Our love *must* be sincere, and the key is where we invest as a matter of obedience – feelings will follow. Also, Romans 12:2 plainly says how our minds are transformed; conformity to the mind of Christ rather than the world.
Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us. Paul said it like this in Philippians 4:8,9;
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In this passage we have inside obedience, outside obedience, and the God of “peace” with us.
Brothers and sisters I beg you: flee from any teacher who toys with the biblical concept of obedience.
paul
Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
Per the Usual, You Always Learn Something When You Do Dr. J’s Homework
In a recent post (https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/i-always-do-dr-js-homework/), I comment on a post written by Jay Adams where he raises concerns about passive forms of sanctification running about in the church. He suggested that counselors have counselees make a list of all imperatives located in 1Corithians, and then ask themselves who the commands are directed to. Them? Or, (as he asked in a keynote address) the Holy Spirit? I just couldn’t help but to see the challenge as a homework assignment, and the results are documented in the above-mentioned post.
But as a former counselee under NANC counseling back when they were dealing with a full deck, I always learned from Dr. J’s homework that was part of the curriculum, and this assignment was certainly no exception. First of all, as would be necessary to state in the present climate, an examination of nouns, verbs, adjectives, ect., and how they relate to each other in 1Corintians would seem to indicate that all imperatives in the book are directed toward us. However, like those peasants that were “taught” by Jesus via the Sermon On the Mount, I haven’t yet taken any courses from Westminster Theological Seminary (which I am sure was located in Jerusalem at the time before Israel became the church) on *redemptive historical hermeneutics*. That could be critical because I recently heard from a counselee (being counseled by a NANC certified counseling center) that some counselors, you know, the advanced ones, are counseling people from *narrative diagrams* instead of cognitive literature. Yes, instead of instruction, the counselor drew a diagram of the counselee’s life and showed him where he was located in the diagram. Wow, Sweet dude, say amen and pass the bong.
But I learned much more than who the imperatives are directed at in the book of 1Corithians, I learned that 1Corithians does violence to Gospel Sanctification (the passive form of sanctification that I am concerned with) and its four pillars: NCT (New Covenant Theology; not all proponents of GS hold to NCT, but most do); heart theology; Christian hedonism, and redemptive historical hermeneutics. My post here will be far from a comprehensive list of examples from 1 Corinthians, but let me share some examples.
First, NCT teaches that the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is an isolated unit symbolized by stone rather than “hearts,” (or “word” verses “Spirit”) and is indicative of all biblical imperatives, and is not applicable to the New Testament (ie., New Covenant), but was replaced by a transcendent “higher Law of Christ” that now interprets (the “apostles hermeneutic”) the Old Testament as partial revelation that was pre-designed by God for replacement. Paul’s statements in 1Corintians destroys this notion completely.
1) In 1:31, Paul makes a case for one of his points by citing Jere. 9:24, and prefaces it with the phrase “it is written.” This is the exact phrase Jesus used in Mathew 4:4 (before the New Testament was written), and said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Therefore, man also lives by every word in the Old Testament, including the so-called “Decalogue.”
2) Paul validates his arguments to the Corinthians by citing the Old Testament, often prefaced with “it is written” in 9:8, 9:9, 10:6, 10:7, 10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 10:11, 10;25-26, 11:16, 14:21-22, 14:34. Therefore, the OT often lends understanding to the NT and vise versa.
3) In 9:8 and 14:34, Paul calls the whole OT “the Law.” In 9:9, he calls the Pentateuch “the Law.” In 14:21, he calls Isaiah 28:11-12 “the Law.” The Ten Commandments is not “the Law” apart from the rest of Scripture, and therefore the focus of doctrine that separates its purpose from the New Covenant.
Secondly, GS teaches that all of our focus must be “change at the heart level,” resulting in obedience that is a “mere natural flow.” Paul didn’t get the memo. Paul was a strong advocate of what I believe Jay Adams calls “radical amputation.” In other words, life choices that present obstacles to sinning or an escape from sin. Said another way, change on the *outside level.* Clearly, Paul’s instruction for those who cannot control their lust was to simply get married (7:9). He also advocated obedience in regard to sexual relations to prevent temptation (7:5) By the way, I know of a specific case where adultery was the final death-blow to a marriage were depriving of intimate relations was a long standing issue. The counselor told them to disregard 1 Cor. 7:5 because what they really needed to do was get to the “heart issues.” In 10:14, Paul says to “flee” from adultery. In 11:31, Paul said to judge ourselves to prevent judgment from God in our lives. He also uses fear of judgment from God to motivate us to behave in 10:8 (sexual immorality), 10:9 (provoking God), and 10:10 (grumbling).
Also, it may be noted that Paul advocated the redirection of desires through obedience: 14:1, 14:12, 14:15, 14:18, and a strong emphasis on exertion regarding self discipline (9:25, 9:27).
Thirdly, Christian hedonism stands against obeying God from the perspective of duty, rather than pure motives supposedly marked by joy. Again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 7:3, he commands husbands to fulfill their marital “duty” to their wives.
Fourthly, in regard to redemptive historical hermeneutics:
1) RHH teaches that the Bible is to be used sorely “in the service of the gospel.” But again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 4:1, he refers to biblical truth as “things,” a plural noun clearly implying a multiplicity of propositional truth. Conspicuously absent is a definite article in regard to the gospel. But, in 11:2 Paul uses a definite article in regard to “teachings,” minus an object, making it a noun in plural form, and thereby implying in no uncertain terms that Scripture encompasses a multiplicity of propositional truth. If the gospel is the ne plus ultra of Scripture, how could Paul make such statements?
2) RHH teaches that the Bible is a gospel narrative that serves the same purpose for believers as well as unbelievers; it is to continually impart life to both. Micheal Horton goes to great lengths to make this point in “Christless Christianity.” So, the idea that the Bible contains truth that we receive for the purpose of salvation, and then move on to “something else,” is vehemently dismissed by advocates of RHH. But yet, Paul said in 14:22 that tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophesy (knowledge that edifies) “is for believers, not for unbelievers.” This shows clearly that the Bible does contain a dichotomy of truth for different uses in regard to justification and sanctification. Obviously.
3) RHH promotes an exclusive redemptive hermeneutic, but Paul displays an example of how the Bible uses various hermeneutics and states them accordingly. If no hermeneutic is stated, the plain sense of the text is assumed (“he opened His mouth and taught them”). For instance, Paul said to the Galatians in regard to part of what he wrote: “this is allegory.” We have another example of this throughout chapter 7, where Paul carefully explains the the context in which what he writes is to be interpreted.
4) RHH teaches that both Scripture and general revelation are not for the purpose of practical application, but rather to “show forth the gospel.” But Paul speaks of a practical application in 11:14,15 that, according to him, can be ascertained from nature; namely, that men should not have long hair. Many examples of this can, of course, be seen in the book of proverbs as well.
“Teachers” of our day have been laboring for some time to build a consistent theology that makes NCT, Christian hedonism, heart theology, and RHH, all fit together in application and experience. The results of this homework assignment make one thing crystal clear, at least one huge obstacle is Paul and his letter to the Corinthians.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment