Chan, Carson, Piper, Tchividjian Versus the Holy Spirit On “Rules”
Here is what the brain-trust of Sonship theology says about “rules”:
Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
What the Holy Spirit says as translated by the foursome’s Bible of Choice, the ESV:
Psalm 18:22
For all his rules were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me.
Psalm 19:9
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
Psalm 89:30
If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules,
Psalm 119:7
I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:13
With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth.
Psalm 119:20
My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.
Psalm 119:30
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.
Psalm 119:39
Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.
Psalm 119:43
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules.
Psalm 119:52
When I think of your rules from of old, I take comfort, O LORD.
Psalm 119:62
At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:75
I know, O LORD, that your rules are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
Psalm 119:102
I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.
Psalm 119:106
I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:108
Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O LORD, and teach me your rules.
Psalm 119:137
Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.
Psalm 119:156
Great is your mercy, O LORD; give me life according to your rules.
Psalm 119:160
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Psalm 119:164
Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:175
Let my soul live and praise you, and let your rules help me.
Psalm 147:20
He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the LORD!
paul
TGC Part 20: Directory May Give Clue Regarding What GS/S Churches “Look Like”
This will be the last part in this series concerning The Gospel Coalition. While looking into the possibility of posting a directory of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship churches—it quickly became evident that such a task would be too time consuming. Unfortunate, because many give testimony to the fact that the average lay person will spend two years figuring out that their leadership has adopted the GS/S doctrine. In all cases reported so far, the eldership of GS/S churches refused to come clean to the very end.
Therefore, the best course of action is to refer Christians to the TGC Network Church Directory: http://thegospelcoalition.org/network/church-directory/
On the list is a church in Springboro, Ohio named Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC). CCC, often referred to as “Clearcreek Cult,” and “Cloudy-Creek Chapel” by former members, is one of the most respected churches among the who’s who of GS/S. The church was founded by Dr. John Street, a prominent board member of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition which is intimately connected with TGC and T4G. DA Carson, Jerry Bridges, and Robert Jones have done conferences there (CCC), and Paul David Tripp speaks there often. CCC was one of the pilot churches that tested David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change” before it was published as “How People Change” authored by Tripp and Timothy Lane. CCC is also a NANC training center.
Therefore, CCC, as one of the first independent Reformed churches to ascribe to the GS/S doctrine, could represent what churches who follow GS/S doctrine may look like in future years. For expediency, I will use an unpublished (until now) document that expresses concerns regarding CCC—and it also makes a good questionnaire for other churches that hold to this doctrine. The document was derived from actual events and testimonies from former members.
An Open Challenge To Clearcreek Chapel In Springboro, Ohio:
I. A primary hallmark of a cult is covert doctrine and church policy that is gradually assimilated into the thinking of its members incrementally. The organization “CultWatch” states the following: “…if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the ‘truth’ from you until they think you are ready to accept it.” Therefore, we challenge the Chapel elders to fully reveal what they believe about the following doctrine and policies to all present members, new members, and visitors:
A. Sanctification: Please inform them that you believe that sanctification is purely monergistic in the same way as it is in justification, and that participation by believers in the sanctification process is a false gospel.
B. The Word of God: Please inform them that you believe that every verse in the Bible is about justification only, and that the Holy Spirit is only active in sanctification when the Scriptures are used to that end only. Affirm or deny that Christians need salvation every day.
C. Church Discipline: Please inform them that you believe that any member can be placed into your church discipline process at any time, and for any reason, and without prior notice. Please inform them that a verbal repentance from the subject does not end the process, but that true repentance must be determined by elders over time. Please inform them that they are not free to leave the Chapel until they are released from this discipline process by the elders, and that any attempt to do otherwise will result in excommunication. Please inform them that all subjects who enter into formal, or informal counseling, are considered to be in the discipline process, and are not free to leave Clearcreek Chapel until they are released from counseling. Please inform them that you believe that you have the authority to place any individual into your church discipline process regardless of membership status, including those who have never been a member of Clearcreek Chapel in the past.
D. Divorce: Please inform all present members, new members, and visitors that you believe that your members are free to divorce any spouse that is unbelieving, or declared to be unbelieving by you because of a wide range of perceived failures as a spouse. Also, many of these perceived failures can be considered abandonment even if the spouse has not physically left or filed for divorce. Furthermore, in regard to an unbelieving husband, you believe that he has no authority in the home, but that his authority resides with you instead.
E. Elder Authority: Affirm or deny that God will honor any decision you make as long as it is according to the single law of love governed by your own conscience (as supposedly formed by reading the “gospel narrative” only), and to the exclusion of objective, biblical imperatives, and the authority thereof.
F. Church Membership: Affirm or deny that members need permission to leave the Chapel for another congregation. Affirm or deny that members can be brought under church discipline if the elders affirm that they are leaving for “unbiblical” reasons.
II. Cults propagate a strong exclusivism mentality among their members. Clearcreek Chapel members are characterized by a predominant attitude that the Chapel is the only truly relevant ministry within hundreds of miles. This mentality is clearly propagated by the elders of Clearcreek Chapel and would be necessary by default because of your belief that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel, which is far from what most churches consider orthodox.
III. Cults inflict fear through character assassination and inimidation. Character assassination in regard to those who have left the Chapel is rampant, and the elders stand by and give approval by participating or refusing to stop this activity, regardless of the pleadings from those who have left. This is a well documented fact. CultWatch says the following in regard to this third element: “Character Assassination is a sure sign of a cult,” Also, “Cult leadership is feared. To disagree with leadership is the same as disagreeing with God.” Fear of leadership at the Chapel is very prevalent and easy to ascertain.
IV. Information control is a sure sign of a cult. The Chapel elders have specifically told parishioners that observing a particular website critical of the Chapel is “sin.” Because any sin is cause for church discipline at the Chapel; in essence, you are clearly threatening church discipline for anyone who observes the site. A member was instructed by the Chapel elders, in writing, not to study doctrine or attempt to ascertain an understanding concerning your hermeneutics. One elder told the same member not to be concerned with the Chapel’s doctrine for “at least two years.” The following is another quote from CultWatch: “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.” Also, “legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.” We therefore challenge the Chapel elders to encourage the congregation to read material critical of Chapel doctrine and elder behavior, and also assure them that there will be no retribution for doing so.
V. Love Bombing and relationship control are also signs of a cult. Love bombing is a Clearcreek staple. When an elder was caught having an inappropriate, divisive conversation with a Chapel spouse, he offered “love” as a defense in plain contradiction to biblical instruction. The motivation of supposed love is license to do what is right in your own eyes at the Chapel, regardless of Scriptural guidelines. This also speaks to your antinomian doctrine. The Chapel elders seek to drive a wedge between spouses when one spouse challenges your doctrine. This is well documented, and is a staple mode of operation used by Jehovah Witnesses. A constant, and unbalanced emphasis on love also replaces concern for sound doctrine in dramatic fashion at the Chapel, and is a distinctive mark of a cult. Also, on numerous occasions, members who have left the Chapel have been instructed not to associate with present members, and have been threatened with church discipline accordingly. Chapel members have also been instructed not to ever speak to specific members, and others who have left the Chapel. Weekly flock meetings are used to disparage individuals who have left the Chapel and to set the table against possible conversations that may take place at a later date. CultWatch says the following: “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.”
VI. Cults will usually have reporting structures. Elders are placed in strategic relationships with people who are perceived as individuals who may question doctrine. Elders will often invite parishioners or visitors to weekly breakfast meetings for the purpose of keeping tabs on what they perceive at the Chapel. A members wife was recruited to feed the elders private information concerning who her husband was associating with and other private information. The elders also recruited a member to be an “encourager” to him during a time when they were concerned that he would confide in others. CultWatch says the following: “Is information you expect to be kept confidential reported to the leadership? If so, then it’s a cult.”
VII. Cults practice high pressure coercion. To say that members who leave the Chapel to join other churches are made to feel uncomfortable, and threatened, would be an understatement. For members to leave the Chapel without some kind of tension is often a balancing act. In fact, at least one member was held there under threat of excommunication for unbiblical reasons, and against his own wishes, for almost four months.
VIII. Cults practice time control. The idea is to keep subjects preoccupied with constant events to prevent contemplation in regard to doctrine, personal involvement, or involvement with those outside of the organization.
IX. Cult leadership is not accountable to outside organizations or the congregation. We challenge the Chapel elders to repeal changes they have made to Chapel polity in order to implement plenary elder rule.
X. Cults seek to control their subjects through coercion and fear in regard to finances. We challenge the Chapel elders to repent of teaching the congregation that God curses all of those who do not tithe ten percent of all financial increase to the Chapel.
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 12: The Creepiness Continues to Get Creepier
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermon is becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 11: DA Carson Exposed in the Desert
I get my share of grief for identifying DA Carson as a primary proponent of the GS / Sonship doctrine. One reader recently challenged me by sending a Carson quote that was, of course, seemingly orthodox. So, I decided to do a GS / Sonship acid test, which seeks to determine if someone holds to the GS / Sonship view of Galatians 2 and 3. To test, you merely do a google search like this one: “DA Carson Galatians.” What came up was an annual convention sponsored by The Gospel Coalition at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The name of the event is “Clarus [year].” The annual event usually features two prominent teachers from the Sonship tribe. This particular seminar was “Clarus 2008,” and featured Carson teaming up with none other than Michael Horton.
The duo’s theme at this seminar was “Galatians and the Problem of Self Justification.” I listened to Carson’s message on Galatians 2:11-21 entitled “An Apostolic Disputation—and Justification.” Throughout all the tape that I listened to, the fawning enamoration from the members at Desert Springs, an obvious bastion of Sonship / GS doctrine, was obnoxiously evident as the listeners chuckled, laughed, and sighed at every clever phrase and profound utterance that came from Carson’s mouth. If your listening to that tape (mp3), you have to know these people are going to believe everything coming out of Carson’s mouth which is indicative of the Gospel Coalition’s cult of personality.
Aside from that, the message was a pure, unadulterated Sonship take on Galatians. Throughout the message, Carson speaks as if the daily details of Christian living have nothing to do with something called sanctification, but often used the word justification in that context, as the text does, but speaking with a flavor of ideas that we would normally associate with sanctification. Carson, and other Sonship proponents get away with this because most Christians don’t know the theological difference between justification and sanctification, which are in-fact biblical words / terms. Carson, in the same message, belittled the biblical idea of striving to please God as “having a good day,” and gives examples of how Christians supposedly pray about that, and thereby exposing their motives in trying to please God in their own efforts (not his words, but the same idea), which he likens to “spitting on the cross.” A usual mode of operation for GS teachers is to illustrate misguided attempts by Christians to please God (trying to do the right thing the wrong way) as proof that any striving on our part circumvents grace. It’s rarely about wrong application verses right application, but always a works / grace issue. This message was certainly no exception.
However, I have been a Christian for twenty-eight years and have never witnessed any of their extreme examples. Truly, GS propagators are the sultans of red herrings and straw men. But all in all, it can’t be denied that Carson’s message was primarily focused on Christian living in relationship to the law, and that using what text? Galatians 2:11-21. But, primarily, this text is about the law’s relationship to salvation, NOT Christian living. A much better text would have been Ephesians 4:17-32. If you examine all their (the GS brain trust) teachings carefully, the idea of Christian living and salvation (declared / imputed righteousness as a onetime act of God) are almost always synthesized. It is very subtle, but for instance, in Paul Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Seminary entitled “Playing With the Box” (Spring 2007), his introduction clearly concerns the gospel, but the body of the message clearly concerns sanctification in context of the gospel theme. Therefore, again, if one pays attention, their teachings on Christian living are almost always set in a gospel context that distorts the law’s role in sanctification / regeneration. It cannot be denied that they make no distinction between salvation and life application of God’s word.
Carson also taught in the same message that whenever Paul said “law” in Galatians, that Paul was referring to the “law covenant.” Um, this is a smoking gun. Most GS advocates are New Covenant theologians. NCT holds to the idea that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, which was the law covenant. Traditionally, orthodox evangelicals believe that even though the New Covenant is “better,” elements of the old are still intact, especially the law. In other words, the covenants build on each other. In Ephesians 2:12, the apostle Paul makes being alienated from Christ synonymous with being “strangers to the covenants.” Notice “covenants” is in the plural, not singular, then Paul later makes an Old Covenant application to life in Ephesians 6:1-3. Please note the following reference concerning proponents of NCT and the familiar suspects of GS:
“The last twenty-five years have seen a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Peter Ditzel, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer. The writings of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson on the relation of the Christian to the law reveal their sympathies with NCT. However they have not wanted themselves to be so labeled. John Piper also has many points of contact with this movement, but an article at Desiring God carefully distinguishes his position from the Covenant, New Covenant and Dispensational theological systems” (Theopedia,com).
That’s another GS mode of operation, avoiding labels to prevent detection, but these men are clearly in the NCT camp which is a tenet of GS doctrine. This is why I seriously doubt Michael Horton is a Covenant theologian regardless of what he or anyone else claims. His joined at the hip verbiage with Carson at the Q and A sessions of Clarus 08 also makes that difficult to believe as well. Furthermore, in the same message, Carson insinuated that Christians are not obligated to the law (a proper view of that text in Galatians should add “not for justification” after each consideration), but should obey the law as a way of being a Gentile for the sake of the Gentiles in the same way that Paul “became a Jew for the sake of the Jews.” But moreover, he added the warning that we should not do it in a way that gives people the idea that we can actually keep the law as Christians because, as he said earlier in the message: “….we just aren’t [we (Christians) aren’t (present tense)] good enough….consistent enough….whole enough.” Of course, the apostle Paul saw a difference between Christian liberty and upholding the law; Carson makes no such distinction in the same message.
In the Q and A sessions, Horton and Carson agree on the GS dichotomy of law and gospel, without including any clarification in regard to how that would relate to sanctification verses justification. This kind of ambiguity saturated the Q an A’s and the aforementioned message I listened to. Horton and Carson also paid homage to Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney—further demonstrating their kinship with Sonship / GS doctrine.
The classic GS / Sonship take on Galatians 1-5 as being about sanctification is also noted by Eastwood Presbyterian Church in their formal contention ( http://goo.gl/rODyO ) against Sonship theology: “Further, we think Sonship makes a serious exegetical error in its dealings with the book of Galatians: Sonship wrongly identifies the Galatian problem as one dealing with sanctification instead of justification.” In his message, Carson relates Galatians to how we live as Christians, but cleverly calls it justification (to match Paul’s terminology) as if works can only be classified in the justification category. However, his subject matter is clearly that of which would be placed in the regeneration / sanctification category.
Carson’s close association with Horton should be noted as well because Horton is more forthright in how he propagates their Quietist doctrine: http://goo.gl/y03xn
Paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments