Gospel Sanctification Counseling: Part 2
“By ‘walking in the Spirit,’ Baldwin means walking in the gospel. The prior means to walk according to scriptural truth while the latter means to understand the gospel more deeply, resulting in Jesus obeying for us.”
See full article here: http://goo.gl/Hli7
Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Jerry Bridges Proffers Gospel-Driven Bondage
“….they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it.”
“’Jesus / gospel‘ replaces ‘justification,’ and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.”
Let me begin with some groundwork. As John MacArthur said in his book “Truth War,” to fight error in our day takes determination, perseverance, and tenacity. This is because today’s propagators of false doctrine are masters of nuance. In regard to those who propagate the antinomian doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, the goal is to eliminate application of biblical imperatives by referring to such a use of God’s word as “living by lists,” “reducing the Bible to a book of rules,” etc. Of course, they don’t mention that the Bible has “rules” that are often stated in list form. Therefore, they carefully word their presentation so you will assume they are talking about people who use the Bible in a legalistic way. Meanwhile, they ignore practical application of the Scriptures while heavily emphasizing grace. Soon our particular efforts in sanctification will be buried and forgotten (out of sight, out of mind) while subtle / negative references to the application of biblical imperatives slowly throws one more shovel-full of dirt on the hole that obedience is buried in.
This method is also accompanied by synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we are sanctified by the same monergistic gospel that saved us, we can’t do anymore with the Law in sanctification than we did with it in justification. After all, one of the Gospel Sanctification mantras is “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” D.A. Carson, in an interview with Tim Keller concerning the T4G 2011 conference, shared that the main thrust of that conference will be to teach pastors how to “drive toward Christ and the gospel” and to show what “Biblical Theology [ie., Geerhardus Vos hermeneutics] looks like” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you [always] get to Jesus.” Let me rephrase that. What D.A. Carson really means is they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it. If the “same” gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, then sanctification is monergistic. If it’s not monergistic, then it’s not the same gospel that saved us. They can only have it both ways until people start asking questions. Later in the interview, D.A. Carson disingenuously notes that several perspectives on preaching will be presented at the same conference; supposedly, unlike other conferences (who only present the Grammatical Historical perspective). In saying this, he assumes the listeners will not associate the term “Biblical Theology” with hermeneutics. Let me also add that it’s not really about always getting to Jesus; it’s about always getting to “what Jesus has done, not what we have done” (another GS mantra often used by Micheal Horton). “Jesus / gospel” replaces “justification,” and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.
This now brings me to the significance of an excerpt from the Jerry Bridges book, “Transformed by Grace.” Jerry Bridges (who coined the phrase, “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”) is not any different from most GS advocates; it’s difficult to find definitive grounds for argument in their nuanced approach. Most of the time you will have to read several pages in order to find clear statements that reflect what they really believe. In this case, another blogger supplied the following excerpt from the above mentioned book. My comments are in brackets:
“Paul’s call to stand firm in our freedom in Christ and not let ourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery is just as valid today with our rules as it was in the Galatians’ day with the Mosaic law… God gave us our spiritual Magna Charta.
[Paul’s call to freedom in Christ regards freedom from being justified by the Law. Here, Bridges extrapolates that idea into the realm of sanctification. As I mentioned above in my introduction, we see Bridges slight the idea of applying biblical rules to life, but doing so subtly by calling them “our” rules. But since the Mosaic Law is part of scripture, and he makes that comparison, he is really talking about the application of the Mosaic Law (where applicable, ie., Ephesians 6:1) to life. Also, though Jesus’ yoke is light, we, in fact, are His slaves and were “bought with a price.” ]
Through Paul, He called us to be free: ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ In fact, God doesn’t just call us to freedom, he actually exhorts us to stand firm in our freedom – to resist all efforts to abridge or destroy it.
[Yes, in regard to justification, BUT as Christians, we actually find our freedom in aligning our lives with God’s law:
James 1:25
“But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
James 2:12
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom….”
Furthermore, Jesus said that the “truth will set you free,” and “thy word is truth.” Freedom comes from applying God’s word to life. We are set free by being slaves to Christ’ lordship, that isn’t the same as being in bondage to the Law in an attempt to be justified by it.]
Despite God’s call to be free and His earnest admonition to resist all efforts to curtail it, there is very little emphasis in Christian circles today on the importance of Christian freedom. Just the opposite seems to be true.
[But we are called to freedom on two fronts: freedom from the Law for justification, and freedom from the bondage of sin by obeying the perfect Law of liberty. Bridges only refers to the one. Why? Because in his mind, they are both the same, that’s why. However, in our day, the freedom that is not being emphasized is freedom for the believer by PROPERLY aligning his or hers life with the word of God.]
Instead of promoting freedom, we stress our rules of conformity.
[They’re not OUR rules, they are the Lord’s rules. Please note that a “lord” usually has rules he wants you to follow.]
Instead of preaching living by grace, we preach living by performance. Instead of encouraging new believers to be conformed to Christ, we subtly insist that they be conformed to our particular style of Christian culture. Yet, that’s the bottom line effect of most of our emphases in Christian circles today.
[ Living to love Christ by keeping His Law and striving to please Him accordingly is not “living by performance,” that is a typical GS red herring. Paul said whether in the body or apart, “we make it our goal to please Him,” and obviously, the word of God is the standard for that. Also, notice the *us against them* mentality in the suggestion that supposed graceless living is a “Christian culture” in most “Christian circles today.” This is indicative of the GS mentality that believes they are on a mission from God to save the church from the Dark Ages of synergistic sanctification.]
For example, many people would react negatively to my quoting only part of Galatians 5:12, ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ Despite the fact that this statement is a complete sentence, they would say, ‘But that’s not all of the verse. Go on to quote the remainder: ‘But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.’…
[Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the Galatians were being tempted to go back to a system that taught you had to keep the Law to maintain your salvation, NOT the idea that you keep the Law to love Christ and to please Him. We believe that we are kept by the power of God, but that does not negate our call to uphold the Law of God!]
The person who reacts this way has made my point. We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism.
[Here, Bridges makes the shocking suggestion that being concerned with keeping the Law is not “guarding” our freedom, and that being more afraid of indulging in the sinful nature than guarding our “freedom” is legalism. This troubling assertion should speak for itself.]
Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” – Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace, pp. 121-122
[ In this last statement, Bridges notes another GS staple often propagated by Paul Tripp and David Powlison; namely, our efforts as Christians to uphold the Law leads to self-righteousness and religious pride, and to make such an effort is “focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” Instead, we should supposedly only focus on “what Jesus has DONE rather than our OWN efforts,” which supposedly leads to an automatic kind of obedience earmarked by a willing and joyful spirit / attitude.]
How can bridges talk so strongly about one freedom without at least mentioning the other? Because that’s the freedom (through the Law in sanctification) he doesn’t want to emphasize even though his audience is Christian. Therefore, what Bridges is actually teaching is a gospel-driven bondage that averts Christians away from an effort to apply God’s word to life. Not only that, we now have conferences that are teaching leaders to propagate this approach wholesale throughout the church; true freedom as bondage. Buyer beware.
paul
Jason Gray’s Anthem for Chan’s “Crazy Love”
“This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ ‘sweety-pie’? Or how about, ‘honey-bunch’?”
I wrote a review the other day on Francis Chan’s book, “Crazy Love.” In the review I state my case concerning the book’s overall antinomian theme. Basically, Chan attempts to make the same case echoed by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change”; namely, that a relationship with Christ isn’t about biblical imperatives being applied to life, but rather a relationship with Him based on “intimate” knowledge derived from creation and seeing Jesus in every verse of the Bible. After all, according to Tripp, “Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept.” This also apes the Postmodern notion that the Bible is a grand narrative and not a book of propositional truths. Supposedly, this deeper knowledge then leads to increased faith, which allows the Holy Spirit to do everything for us. John Piper calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.”
As I also stated, Chan’s book synthesizes Justification and sanctification, narrowing our role in the sanctification process to little more than faith only. Since our limited role in sanctification needs to be embellished, one of the weird concepts that has emerged from this contemporary antinomian doctrine is the idea that our relationship with Christ should be an intimate love affair, resulting in a mushy exuberance of love towards Christ and others. Hence, Chan’s book is replete with what I called “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology.
Well, just this morning I was coming home from being kept out too late by my girlfriend (this comment is just a test to see if she reads my articles; that’s my story and I’m sticking to it), and thinking to myself: “did I go too far in the article?” I kid you not, at that moment, a song by Jason Gray came on the radio entitled “More Like Falling in Love.” The words blew me away; the song is a perfect anthem for Chan’s book. When I got home, I googled the song and found the lyrics on a post by a girl named Christy ( http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/2504072.html). In a shocking display of discernment, she said the following in regard to the song: “….when I heard this new song, something gnawed at me. Perhaps I was being cynical, but I felt like the lyrics were emphasizing an antinomian “Jesus is my adorable boyfriend!” (By the way, I was in a church this morning where a praise song referred to Christ as the “Darling” of heaven). Christy then posted the lyrics:
“More Like Falling in Love” lyrics by Jason Gray
Oooo
Give me rules, I will break them
Show me lines, I will cross them
I need more than a truth to believe
I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes
To sweep me off my feet
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
Give me words, I’ll misuse them
Obligations, I’ll missplace them
Cuz all religion ever made of me
Was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet
It never set me free
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling
Its like I’m falling in love
Love, Love
Deeper and deeper
It was love that made me a believer
In more than a name, a faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me
Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
I’m falling in love
Hey Christy: “ya think?” Lately, this contemporary antinomian doctrine sometimes known as “Gospel Sanctification” is the gift that just keeps on giving; this has to be the easiest post I have ever done on the subject. This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ “sweety-pie”? Or how about, “honey-bunch”?
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment