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
The Gospel-Driven Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification Equals “Without the Law”
The following is my reply to a discussion with a blogger and regards the title of this post. The subject of the other post (not mine) was “repenting of good works.” I do not care to mention his name at this time (update: it was Tim Keller), but thought my reply in the comment section of the blog site was complete enough to turn into a post:
….So let me be respectful, but blunt: I believe you, Paul Tripp, John Piper, and Michael Horton are on an endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification into a plenary monergism. This is indicative of your statement above where you talk of justification and sanctification as if they are the same in regard to application of grace and our role accordingly. I will get to the “so what” conclusion of this later.
Paul Tripp clearly holds to this complete synthesis as illustrated on pages 64 and 65 of “How People Change,” where he describes our condition as believers in the same way as pre-salvation. Per the mode of operation that is becoming more and more prevalent in this endeavor to synthesize justification and sanctification, he uses Colossians 1:21 as Scripture that is a present reality for believers, when it clearly refers to our unregenerate state before salvation. Likewise, John Piper does the same thing in one of his ebooks entitled “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial”:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17)”.
Note that he cites Romans 6:17 in regard to why we struggle as Christians presently; Romans 6:17 is clearly a verse that concerns the unregenerate, and he even states that we are still “enslaved” as believers. I disagree.
Michael Horton’s contribution to this endeavor is stated by him in “Christless Christianity” on page 62:
“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.”
1. We only find continued life as believers when we partake in the same gospel that gives life to the unregenerate. This is what he is clearly saying.
2. If we move on to anything else, we loose both; in other words, synergistic sanctification is a false gospel because it separates practical aspects of justification and sanctification, which are both supposedly defined by the gospel that saves us. This is what he is clearly saying. Hence, the new reformation that is supposedly on a mission from God to save the evangelical church.
I often get flack from those who say Michael Horton is a sound advocate of biblical obedience to the Law by believers. But in fact, this is not true. Horton believes that the Law serves the same purpose for believers and unbelievers alike. In Modern Reformation, “Creeds And Deeds: How Doctrine leads to Doxological Living,” he says the following:
“Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commands in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament”
Sounds good, doesn’t it? But then he goes on to say the following:
“The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior….”
In other words, the purpose of the Law is to drive Christians to despair when they try to keep it, and thereby causing them to embrace the Savior who is really the one upholding the law for us (indicatives). If you read the whole paragraph in context, he is saying that the purpose of the Law in the life of believers is to create a perpetual state of guilt in order to keep us dependent on the cross and the righteousness of Christ only. Again, and for all practical purposes, he is saying that the Law has the exact same relationship, and purpose, to unbelievers and believers alike. Additionally, this viewpoint concerning the Law would be efficacious to the synthesizing of justification and sanctification as well.
So, it therefore stands to reason, that your primary focus in sanctification would be the same primary focus of unbelievers (justification) as well for purposes of salvation; repentance. Because your doctrine, by definition, is narrow and limited to repentance, this aspect must be greatly embellished and expanded; hence, all kinds of introspective theories concerning idols of the heart and the need to repent of repenting (or repenting of good works).
Well then, other than the fact that none of this stands the test of Scripture; so what? Here is the “so what?”: the complete synthesizing of justification and sanctification together leads to “without the Law” (most often in the Bible: “lawlessness“) in sanctification. We also refer to this as Antinomianism. Why would Christians even attempt to uphold the Law when we are no more able to do so than unbelievers (supposedly)? Again, Horton’s position on this is absolutely clear (I again point to page 62 of Christless Christianity). So then, are we to relish in our inability to uphold the Law of God? To the contrary, the Bible is saturated with verses that promise happiness and joy through our obedience.
Just this morning, a friend shared an article with me, and several others, from Christianity Today. It was a recent Jennifer Knapp (a contemporary Christian music artist) interview in which she defends her homosexual life style. She stated that she is not obligated to keep the Law because she, or anyone else, is unable to anyway. She (according to her) is only obligated to keep the greatest commandment of loving thy neighbor. Here is what she said:
“But I’ve always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I’ve found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place. If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I’m sorry. I’m going to be a miserable failure.”
She further poo-poos the Law with this statement:
“…what most people refer to as the ‘clobber verses’ to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they’re eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics,”
I find her statement eerily parallel to that of many “gospel-driven” proponents in regard to their perspective on the Law. Though I know you and others would never condone her behavior, I still find the parallels disquieting. If you care to respond, please don’t cite Reformers or Creeds, I am really looking for a solid biblical argument that I have this all wrong. And really, I hope I do.
Blessings,
Paul Dohse
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
1 Kings 8:39: Heart Theology Is Not The Real Reformation
“Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, ……..We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God.”
It happened in the early 90’s. I was in the process of absorbing and applying truth from what I think was in fact a contemporary reformation. There is no doubt, Christianity had relinquished its faith and confidence in God’s word; specifically, in regard to solving the weightier issues of life and godliness, deferring to the so-called “experts” of our day. Jay Adams, a reformed Presbyterian, introduced a structured biblical counseling system that radically changed lives through the power and instruction of God’s word. His thesis, after it was all said and done, and in a manner of speaking, begged this question by children: “Daddy, what did Christians do about serious problems before Sigmund Freud came along?” Surprisingly, and before evangelicals barely had a chance to catch their breath, something else came along, Heart Theology. Picking up again where my opening sentence left off, the following is how I was first introduced to Heart Theology. I was an elder in a church that was a training center for what was dubbed “biblical counseling.” The elder that was primarily leading this program was also in the process of obtaining his doctorate degree from another counseling center attached to a reformed seminary. This is where he was introduced to this new counseling theology. It was added as a level 2 program, or addendum to what was already considered radical among evangelicals; namely, the concept that God’s word is sufficient for all matters of life and godliness. I was skeptical in regard to this new twist. Let me explain the basic differences in the two approaches that fueled my skepticism.
First, in regard to the original biblical counseling movement, there are two basic characteristics of biblical counseling as originally introduced by Adams. First, it changed preaching, which was predominately, and still is to a large degree, “about” the Bible. For instance, there may have been many sermons “about” the importance of communication from the Bible. For example, instances where men misunderstood God and gee whiz, bad things happened after that, so don’t do what they did. Biblical counseling went beyond that to a deeper and technical understanding that was applied to real life situations. An example would be biblical precepts of communication that could readily be brought to mind in everyday life and applied accordingly. It was and is, technical wisdom from the word of God and specific instruction on how to apply it to real life. Once pastors learned to do this in the privacy of their office, it transferred to the pulpit where it became preventative medicine for God’s people. Yet another example. Say a young couple in your church decides to marry. What usually happens? We rejoice and marry them! Right? The Jay Adams approach would ask three questions: are these two young people experts on marriage? Probably not. Does God’s word have any wisdom that will prepare them for successful marriage that honors God? Of course. So should we just let them figure it out on their own? Probably not. This introduced Premarital Counseling in the church, with many pastors making it a prerequisite to that church’s participation in the wedding.
The other characteristic was an equal emphasis on justification and sanctification. Let’s be honest, the primary focus of evangelicals is getting people saved. Once there saved, we teach them the importance of church attendance, tithing, and learning about the Bible. Christ never told us to primarily get people saved; his mandate for the church is to “make disciples.” This is done by counseling with God’s word. Premarital Counseling, like many other aspects of biblical application, is “making disciples.” Preaching from the pulpit should also keep parishioners out of the counseling office as well as divorce court. The contention by Adams that pastors are to primarily counsel and not preach was indeed a shocker to many. Preaching should always contain counsel in regard to the technical application of God’s word to real life.
But in addition to these characteristics, one of the primary elements of this biblical counseling was its emphasis on objectivity. Jay Adams was, and I assume still is, a stickler for objective instruction rather than what was referred to as “fuzzy land.” However, I must concede this one weakness in the contemporary (about 37 years old) biblical counseling movement; there was a lack of emphasis on the monergistic resources that give us the strength to apply God’s wisdom to everyday life. But this is understandable, for Evangelicals were preaching about the forest in habitual fashion. The gargantuan task of showing the importance of the individual trees and their proper application was bound to distract. So, in regard to the biblical counseling movement, I have explained two characteristics, one element, and one fault.
Strange, In the midst of this revolution that was pouring out hope, seemingly without measure, there was another movement afoot that had a compliant against the former and the new; namely, biblical counseling wasn’t vertical enough, Adams had simply refined the emphasis on the outward and made Baptist Pharisees into super Pharisees. Yes, the new reformation (Adams) was bringing about lots of change, but it wasn’t “lasting change.” Their answer?; they contended that Christians must abandon all emphasis on outward behavior and partake in emphasizing change at the “heart level.” That would be the two elements of the Heart Theology movement: change at the heart level, and real, lasting change (theoretically).
So, what does that look like (not “how,” which might imply some kind of verb to follow)? Well, the key is deciphering the “desires of the heart.” Desires reveal the idols in our heart, or anything that we love more than God (supposedly, according to advocates). So, what does that look like? Well, we analyze desires of the heart three ways. First, by how we respond to circumstances. Second, by asking God to reveal the Idols through prayer. Thirdly, by imagining future scenarios and taking note of how it makes us feel. The second means is direct, God simply reveals it to us directly through prayer. The first and third means require the use of interpretive questions. So for instance, you are watching a football game and your wife demands that you take the trash out “right now!” And this in fact makes you angry. The most common interpretive question is “what did you want?” The answer is the following: you wanted to be left alone to enjoy the game and you wanted to be shown more respect by your wife. There you have it; football and being respected are idols in your heart. If you now repent of these idols, they are emptied from your heart and God then fills that void in your heart with himself. To the extent that your heart has idols, God is not present. Depending on the presence and filling of God verses idols, obedience is a “mere natural flow” that doesn’t require effort (works) on our part.
This now brings me to the major characteristic of Heart Theology, it’s nebulous and subjective. It also brings me to the fault of Heart Theology which is fatal. Unlike the understandable (lack of emphasis on God’s promised resources) and easily adjusted error of biblical counseling, The fatal error of Heart theology is its conflict with 1 Kings 8:39;
“then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),
This verse emphatically states that only God can know the heart. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to use the subject (God [“you”] ) twice with no words in between (modifiers ect.). This is clearly for the purpose of strong emphasis. We cannot evaluate the heart in regard to idols. Besides, scripture often identifies sinful desires as being located in the “flesh” to begin with.
Though we depend on God’s strength, He would have us to focus on the objective and plain sense of Scripture. Following God’s wisdom and instruction is our role. Knowing and changing the heart is God’s business. Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, Adams certainly never said that. We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly (thinking), obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, confess, and leave the changing and knowing of the heart to God. Adams said it best in a counseling conference: “The commands in the bible are not to the Holy Spirit, they are to us” and, “Quietism will ruin peoples lives.” There is no new reformation that narrows God’s precepts and wisdom for living to “deep repentance” that requires us to know our hearts. We cannot know our hearts, only God can. If there has been any reformation in the past 30 years, it has been the ability to apply the word of God to every issue of life and godliness.
paul
Matthew 24:10-13: Love Has A Soul Mate; The Law
I am so, so happy concerning the emphasis that our church has on daily Bible reading. It is so powerful, this concept of disciplining yourself to read through the scriptures daily with the illuminating presence of the Holy Spirit within. It is also an important safeguard in this age of deception we live in. You are taught by somebody to believe a certain thing and then as you are reading, some verse hits you right between the eyes with the hammer of contradiction. Other times, you are just struck by the implications of what you just read and incited to dig deeper. Such was my experience a couple of weeks ago as I read the following in Matthew 24:
10 And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. 11 And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. 12 And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. 13 But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Astounding. The love grows cold “because” of lawlessness. You would think it would be just the opposite. You would think a lack of love would lead to lawlessness as a natural result thereof. This would mean that there is no intimate relationship between law and love, lawlessness is just a natural result of a lack of love. But here in Matthew 24:11-13, a close relationship is shown.
Some translations have it “wickedness” or “iniquity” rather than lawlessness. This is a big deal. According to Vines Expository Dictionary, there are other Greek words for wickedness [poneros] and iniquity[adikia]. The latter can imply a general disfavor from mankind or various standards, not necessarily pronounced by God. The word used here and translated correctly by the ESV and many other translations is anomia which is a form of nomos or “law.” Again, according to Vines and others, the word comes from anomos and primarily means “without the law.”
So what is this law? Basically, it is ALL OF scripture. Here is what Jesus is saying specifically and in context: In the last day’s there will be a falling away from following scripture among professing believers and this will lead to lovelessness and persecution of true believers by false Christians. I will develop this as we go. But first, let me establish the fact that “law” is all of scripture and lawlessness is a turning away from following the word of God.
In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ says the following:
17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
The “Law [with the definite article preceding]” included the Decalogue and the writings of Moses. The “Prophets” are the remainder of the whole Old Testament. It was a common term referring to the totality of the Old Testament [Neh. 9:14,26 Dan. 9:2,11 Luke 24:27]. In verse 18, Christ then refers to both as “the Law.” Then in verse 19, Christ refers to scripture as “these commandments” which encompasses any revelation by divine causation and approved accordingly. This can be seen by what the Apostle Paul writes to the Cirinthians in 14:37:
37 If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command.
The mandate of Christ to the Church in regard to discipleship is “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded [Matthew 28:20].”
In reference to Matthew 5:17-20,Take note: The error of the Pharisees was not primarily an attempt to be justified by law keeping, it was a replacement of the Law’s true meaning with their traditions. After warning against the inaccurate application and teaching of the Law in verse 19, Christ begins verse 20 by saying “For I tell you.” The indictment of the Pharisees was an unrighteousness that resulted from the breaking [KJV], annulment [NASB], relaxation [ESV], of the commandments that make up the Law of God [verse 19].
In verse 10 of Matthew 24:10-13, the subject of this post, “then” is the last day’s. The ones who hate and betray one another are those who “fall away.” You have to be on something before you can fall from it. These are professing believers though false. What got them to verse 12, the centerpiece of this post, is verse 11: “And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray.” The subjects that fall away and hate true believers were led astray by people who deal in supposed truth, false prophets. Whatever they were peddling, it did not conform with God’s law. It was “without law,” literally. The result will be a fall from love as well.
In first John, especially in regard to the “last days” and the spirit of Antichrist, I think we have further clarification regarding the association of law and love:
1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4 The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
7 Dear friends, I am not writing you a new command but an old one, which you have had since the beginning. This old command is the message you have heard. 8 Yet I am writing you a new command; its truth is seen in him and you, because the darkness is passing and the true light is already shining
[1John chapter 2].
Note: God’s love is only made “complete” in an ACCURATE following of Jesus found in the Law of God which is all of scripture. Also note: If we fail in that, Christ is our advocate as we pray for forgiveness. Our failure to follow the Law of God is “sin.” 1 John 3:4 says:
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
In both places within this verse, it is the same Greek word that means “without law” as found in Matthew 24:12. In a matter of fact, all of the Greek commentaries I sought out in regard to this verse such as Vines and Wuest, interpret this verse the same as the Amplified Bible:
4 Everyone who commits (practices) sin is guilty of lawlessness; for [that is what] sin is, lawlessness (the breaking, violating of God’s law by transgression or neglect–being unrestrained and unregulated by His commands and His will).
Now observe the hard turn John takes right after saying what he said in 1John 2:1-8 as referenced above:
9 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. 10 Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. 11 But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him.
Furthermore, in regard to the latter verse quoted in 1John 3:4 that defines sin as lawlessness, John moves on to the righteous walk and then love in keeping with the biblical pattern, especially in 1John [1John 3:4-24 as one example]. The intimate relationship between Law and love is intertwined throughout 1John and many other places in scripture. It only stands to reason therefore from a defensive standpoint that we read this in 1John 2:18:
18 Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.
John is writing to New Testament believers. Therefore, we are in the last segment of redemptive history. Indicative of our time will be an expectation of a grand antichrist to come, but with many forerunners of him running about presently. Do you know what is synonymous with antichrist? We have the answer in 2Thess. Chapter 2:
1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
The Apostle Paul refers to the antichrist as the man of “lawlessness” four times in this passage. Anti-law [nomian] will be the spirit of this age. Matthew 24:10-13 is a thumbnail of what will come to a full picture of lawlessness in the tribulation period. False teachers will devalue the Law [Scripture] among God’s people which will lead to an eradication of true love in the Church. This will culminate into a full blown persecution of true believers by the world and the false church during the tribulation period. They will suffer persecution from within and without. This spirit is presently at work today via the many antichrist roaming about as a mark of this age.
But here is the first lesson for us: The way of true love is the learning and application of God’s objective word to our lives. This is how we love God and others. Love and Law are soul mates. This is the exact point of what Jesus said in Matthew 22:37-40:
37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”
This is not saying that God’s law has been replaced by a subjective higher law of love. Those who teach this and devalue the rest of God’s law unwittingly do the bidding of antichrist. The rest of scripture defines the love that all of the Law hangs on. Love is the sum but is obviously defined by the rest of scripture. In a matter of fact, when Jesus taught the above to one individual, this individual sought to justify himself by questioning the definition of who a “neighbor” is. The single word “love” did not define that, Jesus did:
27And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”
29But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
Jesus said: “If you Love me, keep my commandments.”
- John 15:10
If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.
- John 14:21
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
- John 14:15
“If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
This isn’t rocket science and I am not going to make it any more complicated than Jesus did. If you want to love God and others, pick up a Bible, study it, and then apply it to your life. This is the way of love. Talk is cheap. The sin of the Pharisees was not primarily an attempt to justify themselves by Law keeping, it was the exact opposite. They redefined scripture according to their man-made traditions and failed to apply the remainder that happened to be truth, thereby becoming lawless and loveless:
42 “But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.” [Luke 11]
1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you—but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” [Matthew 23]
The way of lovelessness begins with being dragged away from the objective truth of God’s word and it’s practical application. And remember, ALL of scripture is “the Law.” The book of love written by the Holy Spirit also contains instruction for protecting love. We are warned that a devaluation of the true law will be the juggernaut of darkness in this last age. Let us be on guard accordingly while applying the way of love.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments