Sanctification: Where is the Battleground? Heart, or Flesh?
Today, there are two diverse theories in regard to where, and how we fight sin in the sanctification (growing process of our redemption) process. To surmise that this issue is not important would be outwardly rejected by any and all Christians, but yet, Christianity is functioning as if the issue is of no import; no one is saying anything. Strange, for if you would ask what God’s primary will for us is, the answer would be: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1Thess. 4:3).
The two diverse views are as follows: One view says that the battleground is in the “heart,” and the other view says that the battleground is in the “flesh.” I will explain (for lack of a better term) the “heart model” first. But before I do, let me say that I intend to keep my discussion of this very “big picture.” I am also going to mention what I think is the real crux of the issue. Over the years in the field of psychology, the raging debate has been between depth Psychology and behaviorism. One says that a working theory of change must come from understanding the inner man (depth psychology), verses the latter that emphasizes theories of change developed through study of behavior. Simply put: what, verses why.
In all honesty, I believe the present-day debate between the heart model and flesh model is the result of that same debate being dragged into the Christian realm. You can actually drive a historic stake right were this began to happen. Around 1980, Dr. Larry Crabb published a book entitled “Inside Out,” in which he bemoaned his belief that psychologist had an “inside” theory of change but Christianity didn’t. Interestingly, he offered no theory per se, but the goal of the book was to confront the church about only focusing on outward behavior without any regard to change from the “inside out.” In the book, he pretty much stated that Freudian depth psychology was better than nothing, and called on the church to develop a “biblical” model of inside change.
I believe that the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF) answered that exact call. Specifically, David Powlison answered the call with the conception of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change”; the theological program at Westminster seminary (CCEF is the counseling wing thereof) that forms the basis of their counseling. In the early 1980’s, it was no accident that Dr. Crabb had a close working relationship with CCEF, but there was a problem: Crabb was too open (truthful) about what he, and many others, thought about the issue at hand; namely, that Christians needed to strongly consider Freudian theories in order to at least jump-start a working theory of inside change, stating that Freud had already done most of the “heavy lifting” in this area. Though he had vast agreement among his peers, they felt that he was spewing out things that most Christians were “not ready for.” Therefore, CCEF threw him under the bus, and continues to run him over with it till this day.
That’s the history, and it’s a short one. Heart theology, as we know it today, had its beginning in the late 70’s to early 80’s. It states that “real change” must start at the “heart level,” since that is the source of sin (Matthew 15:18, 19). Specifically, the mantra of heart theology is “real and lasting” change. This theology has been roughly 26 years in the making, with the finished product being articulated by two former students of David Powlison in the book, “How People Change.”
The theory further states that the key to change at the heart level is the understanding of misguided, or disoriented desires ( James 4:1). The heart is the battleground; desires are either rightly placed or misguided. This is called the “reorienting of the heart,” or reorientation of desires. According to the theory, desires are neither bad or good, they are neutral, but need to be properly placed. From this, you can rightly surmise that heart theologians believe that desire drives everything, and is the key to change. Whenever we sin, a wrongly placed desire is the source. The theory states that we can discover how the desire is misplaced, and reorient it towards Christ instead through, among other things, “deep repentance.” But here, if I attempt to further explain, this attempted short essay will quickly become a book. Really, I believe Paul Tripp does an excellent job of articulating heart theology in “How People Change,” though I believe the theory is a load of psycho-babble crap.
But before I move on to the flesh model, it must be noted that heart theology has a strong theological thrust in regard to the Law (all of God’s word), and its role in the sanctification process. Like the inside – outside debate in regard to distinguishing the heart model from the flesh model, there is also a major difference between the two in regard to the role of the Law in the sanctification process. The Law, and its role in the sanctification process is really the grand crux of the issue in my estimation. All roads to this argument lead back to the role of the Law in sanctification, period. If you really want to understand this issue, follow the money; in this case, the role of the Law in each. In heart theology, the following of the Law is a result of change at the heart level; the Law really plays no role at all, but is a mere “picture” or demonstration of change that has taken place at the heart level. I believe heart theology is a means to an end; specifically, the elimination of our participation in any kind of Law-keeping. An inside model, or theory of change, makes this theoretically possible (to eliminate the Law in the sanctification process). This can’t be emphasized enough in order to prevent confusion: the role of the Law, and location; heart? Or flesh?
This brings me to the flesh model. The flesh model teaches that the battle ground is in the flesh, or as some state it: “our mortal nature.” The flesh model argues that sin’s enslaving power is broken at salvation, but we still struggle with a remnant of sin that resides in our mortality. The battle is between our regenerate heart ( “the law of my mind,” Romans 7:23.“Heart” is most often an idiom for the “mind” in the Law [Scriptures]), and the sin in my “members” (again, Romans 7:23). Also, the flesh model would teach that desires are not neutral and have their own source. Good desires come from our regenerate heart (“the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”), but evil desires come from the “flesh” (“walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust [desire] ‘of the flesh’”). Therefore, the flesh model would also teach that alignment with “ [living by] every word that come from the mouth of God” is “walking” in the Spirit, or according to the Spirit’s will, as expressed in the Scriptures; therefore, the Law is not merely a picture of heart change, but a tool utilized by us in the sanctification process to overcome the flesh. In fact, The apostle Paul seems to equate abstinence with the very definition of sanctification in 1Thess. 4:3-5 ; “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;”
Seems pretty straight forward. Furthermore, in the very historical conception of heart theology, the admirable (for his transparency) Larry Crabb assumed that depth psychology has helped more people than behavioristic psychology. This is far from the truth and is well documented. Why not, at least, a biblical model of change based on the psychology that has clearly helped more people? In my opinion: because such a concept cannot eliminate the Law from the sanctification process because it focuses on changing behavior. Also, Paul Tripp concedes in “How People Change” that heart theology will have a failure rate; who then is the judge in regard to which model works better? Has someone done a survey?
Lastly, where is all of the discussion in regard to this issue? Do leaders really care about what the true biblical prescription is for “God’s will,” or is it just good conversation while eating lunch with the good ol’ boys at Applebees? Sometimes I wonder. Really, more than sometimes.
paul
Dr. Jay’s Hopeful Post and the Evil Twins
On the Institute For Nouthetic Studies blog, the comment option is turned off, so I will have to make my own here. Actually, of all people, I thought about foregoing any reaction to this very unique, if not historic, post (“Contemplation?” http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?cat=39 second from top) Why? I ain’t tellin’, but I will discuss why I think it is at least unique, if not historic. But, I am going to exercise caution here because Adams does not name any specific doctrine, and it would also seem that it is the policy of INS not to name names (kinda reminds you of my blog, doesn’t it?) so, I want to be careful not to attach any references of my own not intended by the (run-on sentence ahead) father of having a clue of how to help people with the God breathed word and the terminator of the rumor that Sigmund Freud is smarter than God and often the victim of pretentious snot-nosed theologians who are jealous of what God has done through him and who often self-aggrandize themselves at his expense. Ooops, I let that slip, and it also reveals why I almost passed on this post; I have very strong opinions concerning the matter at hand. My conclusion will give you some idea as to why.
As one blogger put it, the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification is a “pet” of mine. Amen brother, and if you don’t like it, be sure to report me to the Humane Society because I mercilessly beat that doggy every day, because it is worthy of the hellish pit that it comes from. However, the subject of the Adams post is synonymous with the primary attribute of Gospel Sanctification; Adams did not say (in the post) that he is talking about Gospel Sanctification, but what he did say is the following: “The problem with the teaching is that it tends to confuse justification with sanctification.” That’s exactly what Gospel Sanctification does (as the title implies). So apparently, if Adams isn’t talking about the same doctrine, there could be at least one set of doctrinal evil twins running about. Now, this is what’s unique about his post, if not historic: nobody, as far as leaders who have national recognition; have ever discussed, or are talking about, these evil twins. The Adams post is a first. This is amazing because the one twin that I know was born around 1980, at Westminster hospital. Several leaders like John MacArthur, RC Sproul, and others, hang-out at conferences with those who propagate the evil twin I know, but they never talk about the evil twins. Therefore, it has been suggested to me by others that the evil twin I know isn’t really evil. But I don’t know about that, because here is what Dr. Jay said about the evil twin he has seen: “Will this seemingly Romish quietistic mysticism—or, at least, what borders on it help one to grow?” [the question is rhetorical]. Hmmm, maybe the problem is what Dr. Jay also said about the twin he has seen: “….it is ill-defined, and hard for those who don’t believe it to express it in words.” Yep, just like the twin I know; and therefore, I offer my excuses for Sproul and MacArthur.
Before I go on, let me use this paragraph to further bolster my theory that there are two doctrinal evil twins running about. The following attributes described by Adams are also exactly like the doctrine I have come to know, and therefore, I assume they are twins:
1. “The problem with the teaching is that it tends to confuse justification with sanctification.” Apparently, the twin I know is a little more forceful. Her minions make every effort to synthesize the two, often using Scripture that pertains to justification to make sanctification points.
2. ….”they [the several verses he cites in his post] all emphasize that one must put forth effort in order to grow more like Christ….it [the evil twin he has seen] seems to set forth the opposite.” Hmmm, I must admit, this is a little different from the one I know, which doesn’t “seem” to say that, but says in no uncertain terms that our efforts in the sanctification process is a false gospel. Could my theory be wrong?
3. “While properly emphasizing the cross of Christ as central to our Christian faith, it goes on in one way or another to suggest that contemplation of what Jesus did on the cross is the way to spiritual growth.” Oh yes, this is exactly like the one I know. Her minions say: “the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us”; “behold [contemplate] as a way of becoming”; “we must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”; “never, never [stated 21 more times] teach that we are saved by the gospel and then move-on to something else”; “there is a gospel application to every event of life, that’s why the Bible is so big”; [no, I swear, I didn’t make that one up] “If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel.”
4. “….this method of sanctification seems to be a substitute for effort extended in the process of growth.” Right. The one I know teaches that “we can no more obey the law than we can overcome the law of gravity.” Likewise, not only does it teach that we don’t exercise effort in the sanctification process, it teaches that Christ obeys for us; they call it the “imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Here is a good summary quote from a minion of the evil twin that I have seen:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Wow, so if you don’t believe the doctrine of the evil twins, “you loose both” [justification and sanctification]. Soooo, does Mac and RC still believe in synergistic sanctification? They aren’t hanging out with people who think they are lost are they? Hey, I’m just asking!
I promised to tell why this issue is so dear to me. In, or about 1988, I barley got myself to a counseling appointment located in Springboro, Ohio. I had one foot in a mental institution and one foot on a banana peel. I would have made a great poster child for Gospel Sanctification and Christian Hedonism. Though I was a hard worker (career wise), I was spiritually lazy except for studying “the gospel”; and my own joy in the Lord was certainly the goal beyond all else. I arrived at the counseling appointment perplexed as to why my “total dependence” on God found me in such a state. The counselor, In a manner of speaking, was a disciple of Jay Adams. Much to my dismay, he emphasized obedience to the weightier matters of God’s word in regard to life and godliness. I had been to seminary, and was well-schooled in the Scriptures (supposedly), but in fact, was clueless.
But I had a new hope. Instead of only crying out to God on my knees for hours, and from the deepest parts of my soul, I learned that no matter how bad I felt, I could do something; and it would actually please the God of our universe sitting upon his thrown. This seemed to be an awesome privilege to me. “The War Within,” a book by Adams, also supplied a profound help during this time. Furthermore, though it was difficult, I continued to work, and listened to John MacArthur tapes while doing so. The series I was listening to was from the book of Daniel. MacArthur, in the series, strongly emphasized the spiritual character of Daniel as revealed by the Holy Spirit. I remember driving home, encouraged from the tapes, saying to myself: “look at me, look at me, I don’t want to be like this! I want to be like Daniel!” Again, I thank my God that I was not listening to some spiritual guru who thinks that every verse in the Bible is about the good news (however glorious), relegating the awesome example of Daniel to “pictures of the gospel.” Additionally, I thank God that I did not instead, end-up in the hands of someone who would have merely shown me a better way to do what I was already doing.
It is time for leaders with national recognition to get a spine, a bag of sand, and a stick. They need to empty the bag of sand between them and others, and draw a line in that sand, thus distinguishing between themselves, and the latter-day antinomians that Paul the apostle said would come.
Adams said the following in the same post regarding the doctrine in question: “People are confused by it, and have begun to ask questions” In regard to people starting to ask questions; I hope this is certainly the case, but the confusion of God’s people still continues to reap the indifference of leaders with national recognition, while applauding those who write books that would be the envy of Timothy Leary.
It is my prayer that we will all hear these words from our Savior: “Well done faithful servant.” But for the love of everything on Earth; it’s a verb phrase and we are the subject. Have we completely lost our minds?
paul
David Powlison’s Eisegesis Kingdom
“Indeed, David Powlison believes that the church ‘forgets things’ and apparently, the most recent thing it forgot about is the true gospel. But never fear, CCEF’s ‘research and development’ team is hard at work setting things straight, until the next discovery that will be ‘tested’ in a local church near you.”
“It’s just no big secret that Powlison believes that everything having breath upon the earth can contribute to biblical understanding, even psychiatry.”
As a former rabid advocate of biblical counseling, I now have grave concerns about where it is going and what it produces. One particular red flag caused me to start thinking in 1998, and I have been cautiously observing ever since. What was the red flag? While the church was barley absorbing the earthquake caused by two men of diverse theology, Jay Adams and Dave Hunt, then came the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF) saying that both of them were wrong. Though Jay Adams was on the scene making waves before Dave Hunt concerning so-called “Christian psychology” and his contention against it, Dave Hunt was really the one who broke down the barriers, making a wide road for Jay Adams and his objective, biblical alternative to the integration of Freudian depth psychology with the pure milk of the word. But at the time, I was thinking that when you already have a reformation of sorts going on and someone comes along saying that they have one also; “hey! not them, us,” something just didn’t smell right. As I have observed the debate over the years and where it has all ended up, I hear Ozzy Osborne singing “Crazy Train” in the background.
In today’s American church culture, one sits in stupefied bewilderment as you look at the plain sense of Scripture in comparison to what the theological rock stars of our age are teaching and propagating. How did this happen? Simple, eisegesis verses exegesis; and the capital city of the Eisegesis kingdom is CCEF, and its reigning king is David Powlison. As the most recognized leader in the CCEF organization (the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary), he passionately proclaims the sufficiency and final authority of God’s word in counseling, but I have a few questions. My questions come from an interview posted on the “Nine Marks” blog; comments by Powlison that are indicative of his counseling philosophy and often repeated by him:
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598016%7CCIID2448362,00.html
He is quoted as follows:
“The church forgets things. The church rediscovers things. But when it rediscovers something, it’s different because it’s always in a different sociocultural-historical moment, and different forces are at work.”
What church is he talking about? Christ said that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I assume that Powlison isn’t speaking for the whole church and all of its history. However, the bigger question is how Powlison thinks that truth is “rediscovered.” But first, the idea that the truth, once rediscovered is “different” because of the “sociocultural-historical moment,” should give one serious pause. What in the Ozzie Osborne does that mean?! The Apostle Peter addressed his primary concern in regard to what Christians might forget. As a matter of fact, because he knew his departure was near, it was the one teaching that he was emphasizing that he did not want them to forget. If they didn’t forget that teaching, it would enable them to have a rich entry into the kingdom of heaven (2Peter 1:1-16). A “rich” entry into the kingdom of heaven? Sounds pretty good to me! If one is fearful of what the church may have forgotten, they should look where the Bereans looked to hold Paul’s (the apostle) feet to the fire, the Scriptures. Also, in regard to some concern over the “socio-cultural-historical moment,” the Apostle Paul and the Hebrew writer both cited Old Testament Scripture without any additional references outside of Scripture to validate its New Testament application, saying the very purpose of the prior writings (2-4 thousand years beforehand in some cases) were for that present-day teaching (1Cor. 10:6, 10:11, Heb. 11:1-12:1).
But it is clear from many of his writings that Powlison believes the study of general revelation is critical to a correct understanding of Scripture and its application. By general revelation, I mean anything that (according to Powlison) “God might have shown other people.” Powlison’s concept of “recycling” is well documented and I am not going to expound on it here. Suffice to say that in the same interview mentioned above, he said the following:
“Caring for the soul, which we try [try?] to do in biblical counseling, is not new. Two of the great pioneers in church history would be Augustine and Gregory the Great. Even secular people will credit Augustine’s Confessions as pioneering the idea that there is an inner life [ in essence, contemporary Depth Psychology verses Behavioristic Psychology]. Augustine did an unsurpassed job of tearing apart the various ways in which people’s desires become disordered” [like Freud’s theory that people are primarily driven by desire. Powlisons speech is always saturated with psycho-therapeutic references].
And:
“Gregory wrote the earliest textbook on pastoral care. He pioneered diverse ways of dealing with a fearful person, a brash and impulsive person, an angry person, an overly passive person. He broke out these different struggles and sought to apply explicitly biblical, Christ-centered medicine—full of Christ, full of grace, full of gospel, and full of the hard call of God’s Word to the challenges of life.”
Besides not being impressed with Augustine for various reasons in addition to his anti-Semitism and allegorical approach to Scripture, the only Gregory the Great that I know of is the former Catholic Pope of A.D 540. Again, I would not be comfortable with gleaning “insight” from a Roman Catholic Pope for purposes of biblical counsel. It’s just no big secret that Powlison believes that everything having breath upon the earth can contribute to biblical understanding, even psychiatry. We see a hint of this in the same article from Nine Marks:
“The modern psychologies present a tremendously stimulating, informative, and threatening challenge. These psychologies are stimulating because they push us to ask questions that we may not have already considered. They’re informational because they are very observant. They’re threatening because they are a self-conscious alternative to the church and would love to take over the care of souls. They’re willing to do our job for us, letting us be a religious club that does good works while they deal with the deep stuff and the long stuff.”
It is clear that Powlison believes psychology and many other disciplines of non-spiritual discernment (notice how he concedes that they deal with the “deep stuff” while we only partake in “good works”) are indispensable in a full understanding of the Scriptures. If you doubt that, here is what he is quoted as saying, again, in the same article:
“CCEF is also unique even within the wider biblical counseling movement in two more ways. One is what I call “R&D”—a research and development purpose. We don’t believe that saying “biblical counseling” means that we have figured it all out. We are a work in progress. We have a core commitment to push, to develop, to build, to tackle a new problem.”
Powlison then explains further what the strength of this “research and development” is:
“CCEF has five full-time faculty members who share a wonderful synergy, in part because you have people who all have a dual expertise—a primary commitment to Bible and theology, coupled with some other expertise. Our director, Dr. Tim Lane, was a pastor for years. He brings a sensitivity to how counseling ministry links to the other aspects of church life. Dr. Mike Emlet is an M.D. who had a family practice for years. He’s the scientist who brings an awareness of mind-body issues like psychiatric diagnosis and medications. Dr. Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology and a burning interest in the nuances of actual counseling moments and how counseling actually happens. Winston Smith stays very current with the psycho therapeutic world. He has given his life to issues of marriage and family and group dynamics. My graduate work (besides Bible and theology) was in the history of psychiatry, history of science, and history of medicine. I am only just speaking of the faculty and not speaking of various members of the much wider counseling staff who have various interests. It’s a very rich environment with a common commitment to biblical counseling.”
Powlison continually admits that CCEF endeavors to test every theory it can find with Scripture, believing that there is an element of truth in all of it that will lend more understanding to the Scriptures. While this should scare the Ozzy Osborne out of every thinking Christian; instead, Christians are immediately guzzling down everything that comes out of CCEF without any hesitation whatsoever. When you think of the Apostle Paul himself being deprived of such (carte blanche acceptance from the likes of the Bereans and access to “R and D”), it baffles the mind. Furthermore, this approach (R&D) is what developed the gospel-driven life movement as we know it today. Otherwise known as gospel sanctification, it has its own concept of the gospel, its own hermeneutic, its own theory of change, and its own experience. It is the “Christo-centered” approach Powlison speaks of in the same interview. Let there be no doubt about it, much of the present-day gospel-driven (or “New Calvinism”) theology is the brain child of the CCEF eisegesis soup factory (through Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change”) and the brand is chock-full of everything that Popes and Sigmund Freud have to offer and deemed biblical by CCEF “experts.”
So then, In classic CCEF form, and their scientific approach to biblical truth, it should be no surprise that the book that articulates Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change, “How People Change,” by Paul Tripp, was tested in a number of churches before it was published in 2006 via a pilot program of sorts (“How People Change”, [“How Christ Changes us by His Grace”] Leader’s guide, pg. F.3. Copyright 2003; published in 2005). Pray tell, why would you need to test a studious work from the word of God? It is either rightly divided or it isn’t, why would you need to test it?
Indeed, David Powlison believes that the church “forgets things,” and apparently, the most recent thing it forgot about is the true gospel. But never fear, CCEF’s “research and development” team is hard at work setting things straight, until the next discovery that will be “tested” in a local church near you.
So are some results in? Yes, I think so. You ever heard of Neuro-linguistic Programming? Many psychologists consider it to be the most powerful and effective program for changing people available today. This alone, when Powlison’s mindset is considered, makes it very improbable that CCEF has not considered the possibility of some biblical truth to be found in NLP. Information on NLP is easy to get, a Google search will quickly produce more material than you could read in a year.
Advocates of NLP have noted the similarities and value of CCEF’s teachings in regard to NLP, especially the writings of Paul David Tripp,
whose book “How People Change,” as I mentioned before, is based upon David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change.” Tripp is sometimes quoted by Armand Kruger, the director of South Africa’s Institute of Neuro-Semantics, because of NLP concepts that can be found in “War of Words,” a book also written by Tripp. This shouldn’t be a surprise because NLP is the study of how words and communication have the power to bring about change. Likewise, the importance of asking ourselves certain questions to evaluate the inner-man is primarily a NLP concept, and strongly emphasized as well in Paul Tripp’s book, “How People Change” (Not to mention many more uncanny paralells).
David Field, a UK theologian and seminary professor who advocates the integration of NLP with Reformed theology, and especially counseling, quotes David Powlison extensively. He also confirmed his belief in the similarities of both teachings (CCEF and NLP) in a personal correspondence between the two of us. Why would this be a surprise? In the above cited interview, Powlison openly admits that Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology. NLP is a major component of neuro-psychology, this is practically common knowl-
edge. Furthermore, in churches closely associated with CCEF, the NLP concept of visualizing possible future events and re-framing them (or in this case, using the feelings invoked to reorient the desires of the heart), can be found in teaching series using Paul Tripp’s “War of Words.” An actual copy of a study sheet (that advocates visualization) associated with one of these studies can found here:
Click to access homework%20pdf.pdf
(Note how the homework assignment directly violates Paul’s imperative to think on what Is true [Phil.
4:8] ).
In addition, during a face to face meeting with myself and elders of a church closely associated with CCEF, the elders would not deny that NLP was integrated into their teachings or the teachings of CCEF, of which their lessons were based on. They would not even say that they were unaware of any facts either way. Let me be clear, they would not even say: “We don’t know.” “We doubt it.” “no, that’s ridiculous,” or even, “your stupid,” though I specifically asked them to tell me the latter.
What is in the CCEF soup? Hard telling, but the results are beginning to show. As I look out on the present reformed landscape, I have to believe the infamous Jim Jones would weep with envy. Powlison routinely espouses concepts that directly contradict the plain sense of Scripture, and nobody blinks, but rather run to the vat with hoses equipped with motor-driven suction. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that CCEF be held to the same standard that Paul was? Furthermore, in the same cited interview, he boldly
proclaims that he wrote a whole book (“Speak Truth in Love”) based on removing the definite article “the” from Ephesians 4:15. No English translation does that, indicating that the text speaks of Scriptural truth specifically, not the “big” and “little” truth that Powlison speaks of to build a case for “all truth is God’s truth” and problem-centered counseling. This can also be seen clearly in the context of the text, where just prior to the conjunction, Paul is talking about false doctrine.
I close with a suggestion for a “research and development” wing within the church. The apostles had one. You can find it in Acts 6:1-7. It entailed appointing men to oversee the needs of the church so elders could prayerfully search the Scriptures while holding each other accountable. I believe that verse seven speaks to the results. To suggest that the apostles also perused all the wisdom of that day to aid in the process of the “ministry of the word” (verse 4), is ridiculous and silly. Peter himself, the rock of the church, advocated no more than the “PURE” milk of the word (nothing mixed in, in case you missed the point). Pastors who let CCEF indiscriminately pump information into the minds of their people are asleep at the switch, and worse.
Again, the Bereans would not even give the Apostle Paul a pass and were complimented by the Holy Spirit accordingly (Acts 17:11). Additionally, Paul advocated no less for even himself (1Cor. 11:1); therefore, who in the Ozzy Ozzborn is David Powlison?
paul
Carol K. Tharp, M.D.: [Paul] Tripp Proffers a False and Misleading Gospel
“But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them.”
“What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?”
Imagine my shock when I opened the newest newsletter from PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries; and lo, an expose on Paul David Tripp’s latest book: “Broken-Down House.” If somebody writes an evaluation of your book in a newsletter called “PsychoHeresy Awareness Ministries,” you usually don’t expect a good review, and the review of his book by Carol Tharp is certainly no exception. The reason for my shock is due to the fact that Tripp, until now, has enjoyed a significant degree of freedom from criticism by mainline evangelicals.
In her introduction of part one, in this review, as she is giving a lay of the land in regard to Tripp’s book, she notes some of Tripp’s weird word-craft in quotations as a sort of Huh? commentary. Welcome to my world. She notes how Tripp describes the book as, “drawing a ‘word picture’ of our life.’” Huh? Still in disbelief that the theological Alice in Wonderland work of “How People Change,” also written by Tripp, did not end up on anyone’s radar screen, and regardless of bazaar concepts like asking ourselves “x-ray questions” in order to analyze desires of the heart; I was indeed thankful for this book and the fact that I don’t have to read it. But what an education it was in regard to another major dimension of Paul Tripp’s theology, who is sort of a behind the scenes minion of the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF).
The primary doctrine of this book that Tharp concentrates on is the belief that creation is in progressive renewal and that we as believers have a part in that renewal. Put another way: an eschatological, progressive renewal of creation. Tharp notes well that this is blatant error:
**Concerning the future, Tripp claims that the world is “in the process of being restored” (18), but offers no Scriptural support for this optimistic eschatology. He ignores Scripture’s clear message that “the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition” (II Peter 3:5-7). Tripp assures his readers that “evil is in the process of being defeated” (105) and that “the enemies of God and good are being progressively defeated” (106). He ignores Scriptures such as 1 John 5:19 stating clearly that “the whole world lieth in wickedness,- in the power of the evil one. After 222 pages of how to be Living Productively in a World Gone Bad, he claims that -you can, beyond any question. be one of God’s tools of rescue and restoration … with the sure expectation” that God will “put a tender hand on— your tired shoulder and say, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You can do these things” (222, bold added).**
Tharp also notes:
**In contrast to all of this, Scripture presents the world as guilty and groaning under the curse and waiting for the redemption of our bodies. The biblical promise lies in “him who hath subjected” it, not in us. Believers have hope but not in their redeeming creation.**
……and also:
**When Scripture speaks of the restoration of the fallen creation, it speaks of a future restoration which is solely the work of God. Nowhere does Scripture support a notion of “restoration” as being “in process” and something accomplished by man…..There is nothing in Scripture to indicate that we are helping God restore the creation.**
An eschatology that teaches a progressive renewal of creation stands as a blatant and stark contradiction to biblical truth, especially when a supposed role by us is included. Furthermore, Tharp also notes how this eschatology echoes the same beliefs as the emergent church:
**In these assertions, Tripp reveals his kinship with the emergent church. A belief held in common by emergent church leaders is their “eschatology of hope.” For example, Tony Jones says, “God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward … in a tractor beam of redemption and recreation … so we might as well cooperate.”6 Emergents Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke declare, “As God’s image bearers, we have a divinely given mandate to participate in God’s work of constructing a world in the present that reflects God’s own eschatological will for creation.”‘ Elsewhere, emergent church advocate Doug Pagitt claims, “When we employ creativity to make this world better, we participate with God in the re-creation of the world.”‘**
But the crux of Tharp’s contention in regard to the gospel staggers the imagination for the following reason: the contradictions between ‘Broken-Down House’ and ‘How People Change’ are so extreme that there are no words that could begin to describe them. Anyone who has studied Tripp’s teachings and actually paid attention in a thoughtful way, would initially find Tharp’s assertions extremely hard to believe. However, she makes her case that Tripp propagates; get this, “environmental determinism.”:
**Foundational to Tripp’s message [in Broke-Down House] is the psychological doctrine of environmental determinism. Most counselors, secular or Christian, counsel as if people’s problems are caused by their environment. For Tripp, this environment is the “broken- down house” in “a world gone bad.”**
Tharp continues to make her case:
**As he asserts, “It conditions what you face … shapes what you experience … structures the struggles … creates the stresses … determines the issues … molds the work of the church … shapes the struggles of your heart … and even determines the things you deal with in your body” (19). According to Tripp, the reader has been chosen “to embrace the promise and possibility of a restoration lifestyle” (20). He is called “away from self-focused survival to the hard work of restoration” (21). He says that the broken-down house is “the only environment you have” (19), but by “the hard work of restoration,” you can achieve freedom from these environmentally determined problems and lead a “life that can truly be called successful” (209). In other words people have become broken down through external circumstances, but have the ability not only to fix themselves but to fix the world.**
This is in stark contradiction to HPC, which teaches that environment has absolutely nothing to do with heart issues, other than to reveal what the sinful desires of our heart are by asking “x-ray” questions like “what did you want?“ In BDH, he says creation [or environment] “shapes the struggles of your heart.” At the very least, he is teaching (in BDH) that the renewal of creation can facilitate inward change. Is Paul Tripp really that confused? Or, does he just want to sell books? Furthermore, according to Tharp, he says the following in regard to righteous anger:
**Tripp informs his readers, “In a fallen world, people of character and conscience will always be angry” (129) and asks, “What will be the legacy of this week’s anger for you?” (134). He declares, “God is not satisfied with the state of this house, and he calls us to share in his holy dissatisfaction” (20). He says that “the ongoing dissatisfaction of our Redeemer is a theme of this whole book” (196). In seeming denial of Christ’s last words on the cross, “It is finished,” Tripp says that “God cannot and will not be satisfied with His work of redemption as long as the physical world suffers the effects of sin” (197). No explanation is offered as to how God, who creates and destroys by the Word of His mouth, who knows the end from the beginning, and whose ways are beyond our understanding could ever be “a Dissatisfied Redeemer” (196).**
A continuing theme of Tripp’s teachings has always been that anger is almost always the result of sinful desires, and usually treats the whole idea of righteous indignation with a knowing smirk. Also, in HPC, he spills gallons of ink dissing practical application, methods, and “living by list’s.” But yet, according to Tharp, he says the following in BDH:
**Having established this doctrinal base, Tripp, like most psychotherapists, proceeds to offer a number of methods by which a troubled person can supposedly restore his own broken-down house. Describing the Bible as “a copy of [God’s] repair manual” (85), Tripp offers “five ways to pursue the character qualities to which God calls us” (30), forty-four ways to be “an instrument of cross-shaped love” (172-174), five ways to “Celebrate Grace” (188), three approaches to “daily living” (201), and five “principles that help create the sort of legacy each one of God’s children should want to leave for those who follow” (209-222)…..Tripp’s talk of becoming “more authentically human”(91) “in a step-by-step way” (188), **
I’m I here right now? The antithesis of HPC is using the Bible as a “repair manual.” In HPC, he presents the Bible as a gospel narrative and nothing else. What is this guy’s deal? Is he teaching two different dimensional truths (eschatological and something else) to be all things to all people for the purpose of selling books? Or is he just confused?
Never the less, Tharp’s focus is on BDH, and concludes the following:
**As such, Tripp proffers a false and misleading gospel, one that is all too familiar among psychotherapists, both secular and Christian. His gospel is false because it presents an unbiblical view of the problem of man and offers an unbiblical solution.**
When Sarcasm Becomes Reality: Horton’s Call for Potted Plants to Report to the Grow Center
I have written many times on the new easy believism sweeping through reformed groups. The *gospel* is now a mystical narrative that we merely sit under in all its various forms at any given time; we are then automatically transformed from “glory to glory,” a “beholding as a way of becoming.” Oh, and by the way, every verse in the Bible is about the gospel. Yes indeed, it is like the grow-lamp that me and my bros formally used to make our pot grow. You are the plant, and the Bible is the light; groovy dude. But what about those commands God talks about that don’t seem to include gospel subject matter? Well, that’s supposedly due to the fact that “God is the Gospel.” Amen, pass the bong dude, and somebody turn out that hall light, it’s taking away from the strobes and the lava lights.
Here is how I sarcastically stated it in another post: “You can also greatly enhance change in your life by showing up at the “glory center” every time the doors are open and thereby putting yourself under the glorious light of the gospel that passively effects your life like sunlight causes flowers to grow.” Well, here we go again, sarcasm becomes reality as the *gospel driven life* movement becomes wackier with each passing day. The Gospel Four: Horton, Tripp, Powlison, and Piper, are always busy with the next concoction that will save God’s people from the former days of wilderness wondering under the heavy hand of the “perfect law of liberty” (James 1:25). Micheal Horton’s latest book, “Christless Christianity,” puts forth the whole grow-light idea in regard to corporate worship on pages 189-191:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
We see five elements of the wacky world of *gospel sanctification * in this excerpt. First, this whole concept of born again Christians still being dead, and in need of daily salvation via the gospel that saved us: “The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.” Christians today have come to like this whole idea that we are still spiritually dead. Why? Well, “when you are dead, you can do nothing.” Translation: we don’t have to do anything but gaze upon the gospel narrative; after that, whatever happens, happens. If we do something good, the Spirit did it, not us. And if we sin, hey, what do you expect from dead people? Sweet, no fault Christianity, if Christ didn’t make me do it, it’s not my fault.
Secondly, the sole purpose of the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation is to sweep “sinners” into the “unfolding drama”: “The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama.“ Forget about the Scriptures being profitable for “reproof, instruction, correction,” etc., Horton’s view of Scripture is here evident.
Thirdly, like Catholicism, interpretation of the Scriptures is best left to the experts and not the laity. Finding and making every verse in the Bible a “gospel narrative” is deep business indeed. So the news gets even better; you don’t have to labor in the word on your own: “Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace.” In other words, real preaching is 100% vertical and has no instruction. It is totally grace oriented, and we are “simply receivers.” Anything that is more than the *gospel* alone in preaching is someones “agenda.”
Fourthly, our role in the corporate assembly is strictly passive. We are there to be served by God via the gospel alone: “As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
Lastly, We are also passive participants in the church ordinances, which also impart grace to the passive participant. This actually smacks of a transubstantiation like view of the ordinances: “Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven.”
Furthermore, Horton then gives a contrast to the above concerning corporate worship:
“In this scenario, the people assume that they come to church primarily to do something. The emphasis is on their work for God. The preaching concentrates on principles and steps to living a better life, with a constant stream of exhortations: Be more committed. Read your Bible more. Pray more. Witness more. Give more. Get involved in this cause or that movement to save the world… Many of us were raised in conservative evangelical contexts in which preaching was chiefly an exhortation to do more, baptism was our act of commitment rather than God’s, the Lord’s Supper was a means of our remembering rather than a means of God’s grace, and many of the songs were expressions of our piety more than a recounting of God’s marvelous mercies in the history of redemption. The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.”
In closing, I am not going to address Horton’s exaggerations and numerous straw man arguments in his second scenario. But note how he makes no distinction between the lost and saved: “God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” His glaring contradictions to the plain sense of Scripture should be abundantly obvious. The book of James, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, and Hebrews, are replete with instructions concerning corporate gathering and worship. Horton chides believers for doing the very thing that Christ commands us to do in regard to the Lord’s table: “Do this in remembrance of me.” Furthermore, anyone who thinks that we gather together to “encourage each other unto good works” should apparently know better than to try personal interpretation of the Bible at home.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
6 comments