On The 114th Day of 2011 My True Love Gave to Me The Gospel Again
I guess this is confession time for me. It’s no big secret among those who know me well that I believe there is a death by gospel going on in the contemporary church. We get the gospel in almost every song we hear on CD / radio during the week. We get the gospel in almost every sermon heard on the radio / PC during the week. Then on Sunday—more gospel. Then the holidays come—more gospel with pomp and circumstance. For instance, it’s not enough that the song, “The Twelve Days Of Christmas”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas ) is symbolic of twelve different truths found in the Bible
( http://www.carols.org.uk/the_twelve_days_of_christmas.htm ); hundreds have written their own “true” version making all twelve verses about the gospel
( http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/xmas/therealtwelvedaysofchristmas.shtml ).
Yes, every verse of a song, like the Bible, must be about the gospel. I look forward to the inevitable, “The 365 days of the Gospel” that will certainly be written by someone, and we are all sure that the church will be the better for it. And since Christ is no longer the King of kings and Lord of lords, the “my true love” part refers to Christ who is now, according to spiritual brainiacs like Francis Chan, our boyfriend and “lover.” Undoubtedly, the 114th day of 2011, Easter Sunday, will be no different. Furthermore, as I have sarcastically predicted before, and I will say again, the days of serving the Lord’s Table and re-baptizing every Sunday in Evangelical churches will eventually become reality as well.
Total gospel overload. Meanwhile, Christians suffer in the torture chamber some call “home.” Someone shared a situation with me last week concerning a sister (let’s call her “Maggie”) who is a member of a “thriving” church that emphasizes the gospel. They are what many call, “gospel centered.” Errrrrr, amen brother. Her husband, who is well respected in said church, has a pornography addiction. But praise ____: they hear the gospel every Sunday!
So, what’s my grip? Well, certainly NOT with the gospel (it means “good news”), but rather what most Christians have come to believe the gospel is: the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ONLY. There is more to the gospel than that—the gospel is also good news about how we masterfully apply the word of God to our lives. Maggie needs some good news. Will she get it at church? I doubt it. The apostle Paul said Christians are called to peace, and Maggie isn’t finding much, even after here husband has heard 365 different versions of the gospel minus “anything we would do.” After all, “it’s not about anything we do, but what Christ has done.” Is that workin’ for Maggie? I doubt it.
Let me not write a book, but simply state my case. When Christ began his ministry, he went about proclaiming “the gospel” (Matt 4:23). What was that gospel? Our question is answered shortly thereafter in Matt 5:1-7:29; that section of Scripture is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount. His death, burial, and resurrection is nowhere to be found in that sermon. The sermon is about our role in having life, and having it more abundantly. Certainly, without the works of Christ, there is no good news of the kingdom. But once we are in, Maggie should get more good news—Christ has some news concerning what he wants her to do about the circumstance she finds herself in. He will tell her: how to think about the problem; what attitude to have about the problem; how to pray about the problem; how other Christians should help her; what God himself promises to do about the problem; and lastly, what God expects her to do about the problem. And as a result of this information, Maggie not only finds a future hope, but a present hope. Christ came that we may not only have life more abundantly at the resurrection, but NOW also. Besides, the Maggie’s of the world make poor evangelist. Homes that can’t withstand the storms of life make poor shelter for a lamp (Matt 5:14 and Matt 7:24-27).
The gospel is cross centered indeed—but it is also problem centered. Um, in case anybody hasn’t noticed, the gospel addresses a problem: SIN. But then it addresses all of the other problems caused by sin—there’s a need for that, just in case no one has noticed. And also, just in case anybody missed it, Epahraditus didn’t almost die because Christ was doing everything for him.
paul
Key to understanding Lame Evangelism is Matthew 28:18-20
Last week, my evangelist son-in-law stated it again in his going back to PR presentation: Christians could seem to care less about evangelism. Others would say there is no “seem[ingly]” about it; in fact, we don’t. I believe the key to understanding this reality (and the fix) is in one of the most noted evangelism verses in the Bible, Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”
Let’s look at this text in order. First, Christians these days are focused on “our identity in Christ.” This comes from postmodern concepts which stress the supposed importance of “knowing our identity.” Only problem is, in attempting to do that, we must first define who we think Christ is. Well, in the Holy Spirit’s evangelism verse, He speaks of Christ’s identity, not ours: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And this must be a very important element because He immediately follows this statement with: “Therefore.” Christ has been given ALL authority in HEAVEN and EARTH. He is the absolute potentate of the universe and most certainly the absolute dictator-elect of planet Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That means He has authority, He is an authoritative God.
However, in our church culture, He is anything but that. He is our intimate, lovable boyfriend. As the number one contemporary Christian song of our time states it- it can’t be about authority, it has to be “more like falling in love.” And have you heard? John Piper says Christ is “the happy God” and primarily sees the world through “the lens of His happiness.”Also, it really doesn’t matter what our King says, no, but rather, “it’s who He is as a PERSON.” The thesis of one of the most popular Christian books of our time (“Crazy Love” by Francis Chan) propagates the idea that a real relationship with Christ is intrinsically tied to discovering who He is as a real person while being free from concern about anything Christ would command. You know, the kind of things Lord’s do; commandments and stuff like that. So obviously, when we are presenting Christ to the world, personal and cultural preferences may take precedent over anything in Scripture that may be perceived as our King’s mandate(s). Christ as Savior and happy boyfriend – Lord is optional.
This is the premise of all of my points here: The Holy Spirit empowers evangelism. My first point is; He won’t empower people who don’t even know who Christ is and how to act like it. Christ said that evangelism must be according to His AUTHORITY. No authority, no evangelism.
Secondly, our church culture cannot get it into their heads that Christ doesn’t want to save people, He wants to “make disciples.” To say that the “gospel“ has suffocated discipleship is an extreme understatement. Christ is looking for able followers / worshipers, not mere converts. The fact that Christians do not know how to take “the mind of Christ”(1Cor 2:16) and apply it to their lives is evident by the fact that they go to “experts” for their problems. Fact of the matter is, most Christians will tune into Oprah Winfrey for answers to life’s tough questions before they will go to their pastor, and for good reason, the pastor doesn’t have the answers and everybody knows it. If you want to know how many stones David picked up out of the brook (and the name of the brook) to slay Goliath, you go to your pastor. If you need answers to life’s difficult questions, you go to a spawn of Sigmund Freud. The word is out, Dr. Phil can save a marriage before most pastors will even get over the initial shock (or disdain) that their parishioner would even ask them how to do such a thing.
Furthermore, the world knows something that the church doesn’t know. Most people change via problems; and what they discover about those problems that come into their lives. “Oprah” is the most popular TV show of all human history, and its theme is life, and the problems thereof. It’s a how to show. Get over it; God is a problem centered counselor. (Adam, Cain, Job, etc., etc., etc., etc.,). Hence, a church I used to go to had twelve converts in one year through their biblical counseling program (back when they knew how). Keep in mind: evangelism is problem centered counseling that the whole world needs. Their lost – that’s a problem, and your the counselor (or should be) that has God’s solution to the problem.
In the Old Testament, two lepers who were thrown out of Jerusalem went back to the besieged city to inform them that they had discovered life-saving provisions. That’s what you do when you have information that can save people’s lives; you go and tell. Christians today have no motivation to tell because they really don’t see where the deeper knowledge of God makes a difference in their own lives. Get ’em saved and then send them to Oprah? Christians will find better things to do while pretending that being a Christian is really different.
That was the problem with the first gospel wave from about 1950 to 1980. “Bag ’em and tag ’em, then send ’em to Oprah. The second gospel wave (1980 to present) says: “The same gospel that saved you, also disciples (sanctifies) you.” Hence, we are all leaving church with the gospel coming out of our ears! The mantra of the second gospel wave says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Other spiritual brainiacs claim: “We never leave the gospel and supposedly move on to deeper / other things.” But this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 6:1 which states: “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation….” In fact, throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is spoken of being a “foundation” that we build on (1Cor 3:10-15 for example). The “gospel” is killing evangelism because immature Christians make lousy evangelist. In fact, the Holy Spirit will not use them.
Thirdly, Christ is not looking for lousy worshipers. He is looking for disciples who learn “all that I have commanded” (ie., about ALL areas of life). Consider the popular “worship” song, “It’s All About You” [Christ]. The following was suggested to me: “That’s an awesome worship song because worship is all about Christ.” My response: “NO it isn’t! Worship is not all about Christ. Again, Christ must, for lack of a better term, be “allowed” to TELL US who He is and what He wants! Christ said we must worship “in spirit and in truth.” Worship is far more than raising our hands in church and using a song to focus on the “person” of Christ. Worship is how we talk to our wife. Worship is what kind of job we do at work. The better the disciple, the better the worship, because the definition of a disciple is “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” God is looking for true worshipers, and true worship is according to truth (John 4:23).
If God is not looking for lousy worshipers, neither is the Holy Spirit. A church that has a heavy focus on discipleship will find much cooperation and empowerment from the Spirit.
paul
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
John Piper Pleads for Evangelicals Everywhere to be Saved in His 6 Minute Gospel
There is a video widely circulated throughout the internet called “The Gospel in 6 Minutes.” It is excerpted from a sermon by John Piper called “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel.” Apparently, it was delivered in September of 1997, and till this day, the title of the sermon that inspired the video has not even raised a brow. “Strengthened by the gospel”? “Us” would be Christians, “strengthened” would be sanctification, and “gospel” would be the good news that saved us.
That’s what Piper believes. It’s the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. I could post-up just on the title. Regardless of the apostle Paul saying on numerous occasions that the gospel is the foundation of our faith that we build on (Rom. 15:20, 1Cor. 3:10-12, Heb. 6:1), Piper’s title would suggest that’s not the case. The premise that the same gospel message that got us into the kingdom, now sanctifies us, has very serious ramifications in regard to life and godliness. First, if you extrapolate this concept to its logical conclusions (a lost art in today’s church); the gospel is the message God uses to justify us, so, if we are sanctified by the same, an on-going justification would be required for our everyday walk with God. Sure, you could still call it sanctification because it grows as opposed to being a particular point in time, but what drives it is continual justification. Therefore, and think about this, justification is not a onetime event, it is ongoing.
Secondly, justification is monergistic (a complete and total work of God ALONE), so, that would limit sanctification to the same tenets of justification; namely, by faith alone! Are we sanctified by faith alone?
Thirdly, would a rejection of sanctification by faith alone short-circuit justification? Do we, therefore, have to believe in a monergistic sanctification by faith alone to be saved?
Fourthly, if we could not obey to be saved, and we are sanctified the same way we are justified, then who does the obeying? It couldn’t be us, right?
So, let me sum-up in regard to Piper’s title with five interpretive questions: Is sanctification by faith alone? Is sanctification by faith, and our works, a false gospel? Do we have to be saved daily? (as stated by a proponent of GS in a chapel sermon at SEBTS entitled “Playing With the Box” in which he plainly said that we need daily salvation). Who obeys? How does sanctification by faith alone function? Are these not questions that effect the very core of how we function as Christians? The guy preached this message when? His buddies are who? Am I here right now?
Am I seeing too much in a mere title? Well, let’s see. The video excerpt is divided into four parts: Let’s start with the first part: “What is the Gospel?”:
“What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence.
The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.
That’s the gospel.”
See anything missing? It’s the same thing that’s missing in 99.99% of all gospel presentations by proponents of Gospel Sanctification: repentance. Some time ago, I stumbled upon a video of John MacArthur verbally flogging Rick Warren for the absence of repentance in his (Warren’s) gospel presentation. Hmmm. But remember, Piper and Mac are buddies, and besides, Rick Warren is not a rock star in Reformed circles. But never the less, proponents of GS believe in what they call “deep repentance.” I am not going to stop here to explain it, but suffice to say that it would be very difficult to insert into a gospel presentation because of its complexity. However, I am seeing a movement among some proponents to attempt to implement the concept into the presentation of the gospel. In other words, they pass on mere repentance, but they want to implement deep repentance (sometimes referred to as “intelligent repentance”) instead. Like I said, for now, I’m going to pass on an explanation, but let me at least give you this snippet: it involves repenting of “good works” in order to be saved. And trust me, they don’t want you doing any good works in sanctification either.
As an aside, let me interject another example that is slightly off-subject. Missing from the transcript (from Piper’s website) that I am using for this article, Piper makes this statement: God entered history IN Jesus Christ [slightly paraphrased]. Is that true? Did God enter history “in” Christ? This is a term that I am often hearing among proponents of GS, this whole “God IN Christ” business. When I ask them to clarify; in every case, they quickly say, “I didn’t mean it exactly that way.” Perhaps, but I am not the only one who is concerned that the Trinity is being distorted by an unbalanced view of soteriology in reformed circles (see page 192, “Future Isreal” by Barry E. Horner). More than likely, Piper was referring to the Christocentric hermeneutic that is also a staple tenet of GS doctrine, of which Horner also expresses concern on the same page of his book cited above. As we proceed, you will see a major element of my thesis here; to be specific, this doctrine continues to get stranger and stranger, almost daily, while mainline Evangelical leaders seem glibly oblivious.
Now we move to the second part of the video: “You Can’t Outgrow the Gospel”:
“You never, never, never [actually, he repeats “never” 23 times; think it‘s important to him?] outgrow your need for it. Don’t ever think of the gospel as, “That’s the way you get saved, and then you get strong by leaving it and doing something else.”
No! We are strengthened by God through the gospel every day, till the day we drop.
You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel.”
I think this statement clearly reiterates my opening description of Gospel Sanctification, but what does he mean by “leaving it and doing SOMETHING ELSE.” What is the “something else”? Well, it’s ANYTHING ELSE but the gospel, obviously. And I do mean anything else. For an Idea, read Paul David Tripp’s (the reining prince of Gospel Sanctification) explanation of what the OTHER THINGS are in “How People Change,” pages 23 thru 36. On page 27, he says that the mere act of changing our thinking to biblical thinking is activity that “omits the person and work of Christ as savior.” Stop right there. This concise statement answers two of my interpretive questions: who does the obeying in sanctification? Well, since the relatively passive activity of changing our thinking omits the “work of Christ,” obviously, Christ is doing the work and not us. Comprender? Also, is sanctification by faith and works a false gospel? Yes, because, according to Tripp, it omits “Christ as SAVIOR.” Right? Also, let me mention that Jerry Bridges, another propagator of GS, coined the phrase “you must preach the gospel to yourself everyday” as Piper eludes to it here. This is often Jerry Bridges’ prescription (and most other advocates of GS, especially Dana Stoddard) for people who struggle with assurance of salvation, as opposed to the obvious biblical prescription of examining behavior / thinking and doing something about it. Is this not a major, ground-level issue in our Christian walk? Why doesn’t anybody care? I am truly perplexed!
We now move to the third part of Piper’s six-minute gospel: “How the Gospel Strengthens”:
“Here’s an illustration, and I use it not because it’s any big deal to speak from my life, but because it’s what I walked through and where I most pointedly in the last year experienced the power of the gospel to make me strong. (Many of you are walking through things much heavier than prostate cancer—much heavier.)
Do you remember the verses that I shared with you back in February that were almighty for me? It was that moment right after the doctor says, “I think we need to do a biopsy,” when this stab of fear comes. It didn’t last long, mercifully.
And then came—what? 1Thessalonians 5:9-10. It’s just as pure gospel as you can get.
God has not destined you for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,who died for you so that whether you wake or sleep you will live with him.
Settled. Peace like a river.”
This clearly demonstrates how the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification has changed biblical counseling. Instead of biblical directives, the attempt is going to be to find the right gospel “picture” (see the transcript from Piper’s address to the 2010 T4G conference) that fits the individual’s “need” at that time. I have witnessed this reality first-hand in actual counseling situations. I was also in a Reformed church one morning that propagates GS, and heard an elder of that church testify to how God miraculously turned a marriage around in the first meeting when he “showed them the gospel” from a particular Bible text. The couple were Christians who came to that church for counseling. In the transcript that I am working from, which came from Piper’s website; his comment in the same section as follows, was left out: “That’s why the Bible is so thick, there is a gospel presentation for every need of life” [paraphrased]. The fact that the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification is radically changing what goes on in biblical counseling offices should greatly alarm the Evangelical church. For instance, most Evangelicals who show-up at one of these counseling offices will be dealt with as if they are not even saved; being Evangelicals.
We now move to the fourth and final section of the Piper video: “A Plea to Believe”:
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.
I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the
gospel.
Don’t put it off. “
Piper begins this section with the following: “I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.” In context, what does he mean that they are not “trusting Jesus Christ”? Well, he continues: “Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.” So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: “I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.” He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to “us” (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel”). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in “condemnation.” This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of “How People Change.”
I only have one plea for myself: among all of my Southern Baptist brothers (Al Mohler etc.), and Reformed guys like Piper, MacArthur, RC Sproul, Michael Horton (if you move on from the gospel to anything else, you loose both sanctification and justification [that means you ain’t saved], see page 62 of “Christless Christianity”), etc; who have been hanging out together, would somebody figure out who’s saved and who isn’t? I would like to know who I can follow horizontally. Or, are these issues just not important? Or, do I just need to shut-up and be mesmerized by expert pontification?
paul
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments