New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 6A: Horton’s Kinship With the Australian Forum Can be Seen in Frame’s Review
Let me continue to voice my appreciation for the information sent by readers; that’s what this network ministry is all about— cooperation in sharing information about New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology which are all the same thing, and hereafter: NCGSS. Information sent yesterday is the subject of this post.
This particular series is exploring the possibility that New Calvinism was born from the Australian Forum. A working hypothesis chart can be viewed in part 2 of this series
( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ); Horton’s place in the theoretical history can be seen on the chart. One thing thus far is certain: the doctrines are identical. Furthermore, both movements show the same motives, and both claim to have returned to Reformed / Puritan doctrine—this is the same dominate theme / staple of both movements. Also, there is reason to believe that New Covenant Theology was conceived from Jon Zens’ association with the Forum, and he also shared their desire to find middle ground between difficult doctrines.
As I noted previously, the Australian Forum Three were Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead and the Forum were trying to reform SDA, the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings. In fact, Paxton was infatuated with Adventist theology and lost a teaching position because of his association with the AF. Paxton and Brinsmead also shared a rabid distaste for Charismatic theology (they would not be pleased with New Calvinism’s inclusion of Charismatics). Goldsworthy’s motives for being involved with the AF are yet unclear, but the fact that he is oftentimes quoted by New Calvinist (hereafter NC) is no accident.
The subject of this post is John Frame’s review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” sent to me by a reader. The review is full of painstaking discernment. This kind of discipline in sorting through the mystical theological world of Michael Horton is very commendable. Frame also mentions what I call Horton’s Kerryisms: “I was for it before I was against it.” Or, “I know I said ‘A,’ but let me clarify so you poor spiritual peasants don’t misunderstand my theological brilliance: I only said ‘A’ in a manner of speaking, unless you agree with ‘A.’ If you agree, I really said it, but if you disagree, I was only saying ‘A’ in a manner of speaking.”
As I was reading Frames’ review—I saw AF footprints everywhere. I will be pointing to that relationship, using Frames review while mentioning other residual issues related to NC.
Frame opens his review this way:
The title of this book is alarming, certainly by design. But the subtitle is even more so. Does it mean that the whole American church (all traditions, denominations, locations) is committed to an “alternative Gospel?” Or is it that, though part of the American church upholds the true, biblical gospel, there is within that church a movement (evidently a significant movement) to the contrary?
John, Horton is what we call a New Calvinist. They hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. As implied by the title, we are supposedly sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. In other words, we are sanctified by justification, and the contemplation thereof. As John Piper says, “beholding as a way of becoming.” John: yes! Yes! Yes! They believe anything short of monergistic substitutionary sanctification is a false gospel. That’s why Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” Listen very carefully to Piper’s “6 Minute Gospel” video on the internet as he calls for Evangelicals everywhere who believe in our efforts in sanctification to be saved from works salvation. It’s why Tullian Tchividjian said the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth. As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day.”
These guys believe that God is using them to reform another Dark Age of distinctions between justification and sanctification. They are also very resentful—they believe that Evangelicalism has sold the church a bill of goods about salvation. This attitude can be seen in the many hostile ministry takeovers playing out across this country (of which are finally being spoken of by Ovadal, Hamilton, and others). A good example is Coral Ridge. This mentality is also identical to that of the AF Three. A good thumbnail of this doctrine / mentality can be read in Horton’s Christless Christianity:
“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.”
NO ONE has yet demanded that Horton explain this statement. And this is fact: any statement made by NC proponents that seems to contradict this statement is just that—seemingly at odds. Furthermore, in many NC Reformed Baptist churches, they practice what is called “Redemptive Church Disciple.” When a parishioner is caught in a sin, the discipline doesn’t address the sin, it focuses on the supposed fundamental problem of how the “vast majority” of evangelicals understand the gospel. Therefore, the discipline focuses on “redemption.” The sin is supposedly a mere symptom of a false gospel. Hence, the discipline focuses on converting the individual from orthodox Evangelicalism to Gospel Sanctification. The discipline goes from step to step as the victim refuses to “repent” from synergistic sanctification to a monergistic substitutionary form. Moreover, as unsuspecting evangelical married couples join Reformed churches; one spouse in a marriage may come to believe the doctrine while the other spouse doesn’t. The marriage is then deemed a mixed marriage (believer / unbeliever) by the NC leadership. I have firsthand knowledge of this, and it is one of many in regard to the dirty little secrets of NC.
What are these subtle distortions? Evidently, what Horton is concerned with is an emphasis. The metaphors of “looking away from” Christ and putting something else on “center stage” have to do with the emphasis we put on Christ.
Right. Horton got this from the AF. Though Horton or the AF affirm many tenets of orthodoxy, they also say that the tenets are irrelevant for all practical purposes. Why? Because they eclipse Christ. To talk about it is to NOT talk about Christ; therefore, “it” is error. So, truthful orthodoxy is true as long as you don’t talk about it—unless you talk about “it” in it’s Christocentric context or it’s gospel context, Or it’s context in regard to justification, or it’s context in regard to what Jesus did—not anything we do. Likewise, that is how the movement denies that we are the subjects of biblical imperatives—because “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
This is also how the AF and Horton both deny the “new birth,” or the belief that Christians are born again despite what is plainly stated in Scripture. Unless the new birth can be framed in a Christocentric context that completely eliminates us from consideration—it’s error. As long as you don’t talk about it—it’s truth, so if anyone calls them on it—they simply say that “emphasis” is the issue, not a denial of the new birth. Let me further elaborate. I wrote the following in part 4:
“This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF Three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article…. Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
‘Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.1’”
The footnote in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, ‘The False Gospel of the New Birth,’ Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, ‘We [“we” being the AF Three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth….’ he then continues to write, ‘Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.’”
So, the new birth is false because, “it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root.” Therefore, unless the new birth is taught without considering saintly ramifications, it eclipses Christ and becomes a false doctrine. Horton reflected this exact same maniacal approach to the new birth in: “In the Face of God.” I will now compare Paxton’s summary quote from the aforementioned article and a quote from Horton in the book I just mentioned:
Paxton: “It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above
and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.”
Horton: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own’ Spirit-filled’ life?”
The above discussion casts some light on another theme of this book, one which Horton develops in many of his writings. Horton often emphasizes his view that the gospel focuses (again, note the relative term) on the “outer” rather than the “inner,” what happens outside of us, rather than what happens within us, the objective rather than the subjective. He quotes Goldsworthy,
“The pivotal point of turning in evangelical thinking which demands close attention is the change that has taken place from the Protestant emphasis on the objective facts of the gospel in history, to the medieval emphasis on the inner life. The evangelical who sees the inward transforming work of the Spirit as the key element of Christianity will soon lose contact with the historic faith and the historic gospel “(152).
Again, Horton gets this from the AF. And therefore, the quote by Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three, should come as no surprise. The AF wrote no less than 103 articles on this subject. Here is one excerpt:
“The tendency of human nature is to make the subjective aspect of Christianity the focal point of concern. This is what happened in the early church. It lost sight of the great Pauline message of justification by God’s work outside of man. Even in the teachings of the fathers of the post-apostolic church, the objective truth of justification by faith held no prominent place. More and more the church began to focus on the experience of sanctification. Indeed, justification came to be looked upon only as an initiating step at the beginning of the Christian’s life; the mighty Pauline truth about justification was subordinated to what was thought to be the higher blessing of sanctification. The focus of attention was away from the gospel to the fruit of the gospel, away from Christ’s experience to Christian experience, away from the objective to the subjective.”
This second excerpt shows why this subject was core to the AF doctrine:
“The medieval thought was man-centered, experience-centered, and subjective. The Reformation thought was Christ-centered, cross-centered, and objective.”
In these two statements from the AF—we see one of the core elements that NCGSS proponents believe connects them to the Reformation. Arrogantly, they believe that Pauline doctrine on justification was lost twice: once following the Apostolic Age; and again after the Reformation ignited by Martin Luther. Let there be no doubt—New Calvinist believe that they are the cutting edge of the second Reformation in Redemptive History, and they are taking no prisoners.
paul
Submitted to the Committee on Resolutions for the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention
Resolution On Distinctions Between Justification And Sanctification
June 2011
WHEREAS, A major contribution to the spiritual weakness of many Protestant denominations has been erroneous teachings in regard to sanctification; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians are sanctified by the exact same means of justification only; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians should preach the Gospel of justification to themselves everyday for sanctification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that contemplation on the Gospel of justification alone is the primary duty for the Christian, and from that one duty, all other duties find life; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that a worshipful doxology resulting from a contemplation on justification always precedes obedience acceptable to God; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians need to be justified continually until glorification, and enablement to participate in sanctification has not been granted by God in any portion more than those who need to be justified; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that personal exertion by Christians in response to all that Christ has commanded in Scripture is works salvation.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention affirm Scriptural distinctions between justification and sanctification; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm these distinctions according to Scripture and those that are clearly evident in Article IV of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Concerning enablement in sanctification, Article IV (C) contains this statement as follows: “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”
Concerning justification as a one-time legal declaration by God, Article IV (B) contains the following statement: “Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we believe that the Scriptures are not for the sole purpose of contemplating justification only, but rather according to Article I of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement which contains the following in regard to the Scriptures: “It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm our belief in the biblical truth that Christians are new creatures in Jesus Christ, and therefore, we also agree with Article XV of the 1925 confession which contains this statement: “There is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and wicked”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm as true and biblical, any endeavor or teaching concerning sanctification that likens to these words written by JC Ryle: “In justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse”; and
BE IT THEREFORE FINALLY RESOLVED, That because of the aforementioned convictions commonly believed by Southern Baptists as described in these resolutions, that those who persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification, be deemed unfit as ministers or teachers of the Gospel.
By Request, But….
A reader viewed the Old Calvinism / New Calvinism chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Bc ) and the GS / Sonship heart model chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-BD ), and found them both “helpful.” She then asked if I had an Old Calvinism / New Calvinism heart model comparison chart. Uh, well, ya, I do, but it was really just something I was playing around with. However, since the individual has impressive theological credentials–maybe the charts aren’t as, well, non-helpful as I thought they were. So, here they are, BUT remember: these are just tools to hang our thoughts on.
But I will say this, I think the charts bring up some interesting points:
1. As I was developing the OC chart, I was struck by how several Scriptures came to mind on each element. To the contrary–that was not the case with the NC chart. HOWEVER, it would be awesome to have a NC proponent tag the different elements of the NC with Scripture. For sure, that would be an interesting challenge.
2. Keep in mind, the charts are in regard to sanctification and the “heart” which is being used to refer to the inner man. With that said–interesting observations can be made; such as, a two-fold limited model verses a many faceted model, and what is inner verses outer.
3. The NC chart needs explanation which follows before the charts.
4. I hope somebody takes this concept and develops something awesome. I really see myself as a get the ball rolling guy.
Gospel Narrative:
It all starts with the Bible being a gospel narrative only. The belief is that the Spirit only sanctifies through the contemplation of the personhood of Christ (whatever that means exactly), or who He is as a person and His works. For instance, to read the Bible with the goal of ascertaining instruction, even by Christ, and applying it to ones life, is an improper use of Scripture (according to GS), and an endeavor that the Spirit will not honor because it focuses on our efforts, and not who Christ is, and what He has done and accomplished for us. To do the prior is to use the Bible as a “instruction book” and not to gain a deeper understanding of the finished works of Christ. Therefore, proponents of GS do not believe that spiritual growth is really taking place in Christian circles where the Scriptures are used for any other purpose than the Chrstocentric approach.
Belief:
Now we come to one of two elements of justification moving forward via the gospel narrative. GS believes that the same gospel leading to justification that saved us, also sanctifies us. Hence, like justification (salvation), their is only two things we can do to grow spiritually, believe and repent. The GS doctrine holds that gazing upon the gospel narrative will lead to more belief, and belief will always produce proper behavior on its own, being earmarked by the right desires. We will follow belief to the bottom of the chart, and then start back at the top with the second, or other half of the sanctification process according to GS, repentance.
Law Positive:
Proper use of the Scripture (according to GS) sees the Law as a description of what Christ has already done for us, fulfilling the law with His life because we are unable to, even as Christians.Therefore, seeing all of the laws Christ has fulfilled for us gives us a deeper appreciation of who He is and what his works accomplished for us.
Treasure:
Seeing who Christ is, and all of His works in Scripture, and all that he has done for us, causes us to treasure Him above all else. Therefore, it becomes our desire to be whatever He is. GS believes that we are primarily driven by desire; and in fact, enslaved by it. Therefore, change the desires, and you change behavior. Assumes our appreciation of Christ’s greatness and mercy is all the motivation we need to change our desires.
Repentance:
This is the second part of our limited role in the sanctification process according to GS. All other activities are a mere natural flow from the Christ in us. It is not we who live, but Christ who lives in us (Galations 2:20). Again, like salvation, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us, and is limited to belief and repentance, with everything else flowing from Christ who lives in us.
Response to Circumstances:
God’s purpose in all circumstances (according to GS) is to reveal idols of the heart so that we can repent of them. How we respond to circumstances reveals what we desire more than Christ. The particular idol that caused us to respond in a Christless manner can be identified by asking ourselves interpretive questions (what did you want? [more than Christ?]). Scripture, which is (according to GS) a grand gospel story (gospel meta narrative), can also reveal to us what the heart idol might be by how other saints responded to the same circumstances in redemptive (gospel) history. So, another limited purpose of Scripture is to help us determine idols of the heart so that we can repent of them.
This is done by showing us what other saints in redemptive history wanted (desired) more than Christ. As you might imagine therefore, how GS effects biblical counseling is profound. The focus will be on identifying heart idols and their attached desires, and changing desires of the heart, rather than behavior through biblical prescriptions born of other approaches to biblical interpretation. Some would argue: objective (behavior) verses subjective (heart issues).
Interpretive Questions:
These are merely “desire” questions that can help us determine what we love more than Christ. The most common one is “What did you want more than Christ?” Or simply, “What did you want?” However, the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation has a list of about one-hundred that they call “X-Ray questions.”
Law Negative:
This is the use of the Law (in Scripture) to drive us to despair by suggesting that we attempt to uphold the Law by application, and thereby driving us back to the cross (being impossible to accomplish). According to GS, the Law is still a schoolmaster that drives us to Christ in sanctification, and in the same way that it does in justification as well; unless, It is seen as being the works of Christ fulfilled for us (Law Positive). Law Negative has a purpose in revealing heart idols to us as well; such as, the desire to be self-dependant (heart idol of pride). Besides, the law has no use to us anyway (Christians) because it has been fulfilled by Christ and replaced by the one Law of love (I will not address this here for lack of room). According to GS advocates, Christians are only obligated to uphold the singular law of love. However, both Law Positive and Law Negative have their respective antithetical purposes for being present in the gospel narrative.
Idols Revealed by Interpreting Desires:
When the methods under “Repentance” are employed to determine idols, we can then repent of them, resulting in “Deep Repentance.”
Deep Repentance:
Also known as “intelligent repentance.” We can eliminate the idol by repenting of the thing we desired more than Christ, and replace it with a truth about Christ that we should desire or treasure more than anything or anyone. This is also known as the “reorientation of desires.” This leads to “New Obedience”
Flesh Realm:
Most GS advocates do not believe that the fight between us and sin takes place on the battle ground of the “flesh.” They believe the battle ground is the “heart.” Though they often speak of the “flesh,” they don’t think it is an inner turf where the real war takes place. This Theory makes our own efforts a point of contention in favor of a more passive viewpoint.Most GS advocates believe it is a realm that puts pressure on us, and at any given time, we either yield to the Spirit or yield to the flesh (a sinful, or worldly realm).
Law Realm:
Since the Law is sometimes said to aggravate sin, some GS proponents also attribute the Law to being part of the Flesh Realm.
Spirit Realm:
The other realm that exerts pressure on us. We simply yield to one or the other.
New Obedience:
New obedience is the natural result of “Belief” and “Deep Repentance.” Since belief is the result of seeing the glory of Christ in the gospel narrative, and causing us to desire and treasure Him more than other things, new obedience will naturally be accompanied by joy and experienced as a “mere natural flow.” Some GS proponents teach that it is actually Christ obeying for us. This is called the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” However, more GS advocates believe this than are willing to admit it.
Addendum: New Desires and Reorientation of Desires:
This is merely what happens automatically when Christ fills the void of eradicated idols through the only two disciplines of sanctification according to GS: belief, and deep repentance.
If anybody would like these charts in some kind of file: pmd@inbox.com
paul
Chan, Carson, Piper, Tchividjian Versus the Holy Spirit On “Rules”
Here is what the brain-trust of Sonship theology says about “rules”:
Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
What the Holy Spirit says as translated by the foursome’s Bible of Choice, the ESV:
Psalm 18:22
For all his rules were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me.
Psalm 19:9
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
Psalm 89:30
If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules,
Psalm 119:7
I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:13
With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth.
Psalm 119:20
My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.
Psalm 119:30
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.
Psalm 119:39
Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.
Psalm 119:43
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules.
Psalm 119:52
When I think of your rules from of old, I take comfort, O LORD.
Psalm 119:62
At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:75
I know, O LORD, that your rules are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
Psalm 119:102
I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.
Psalm 119:106
I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:108
Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O LORD, and teach me your rules.
Psalm 119:137
Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.
Psalm 119:156
Great is your mercy, O LORD; give me life according to your rules.
Psalm 119:160
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Psalm 119:164
Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:175
Let my soul live and praise you, and let your rules help me.
Psalm 147:20
He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the LORD!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
11 comments