Jerry Bridges Proffers Gospel-Driven Bondage
“….they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it.”
“’Jesus / gospel‘ replaces ‘justification,’ and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.”
Let me begin with some groundwork. As John MacArthur said in his book “Truth War,” to fight error in our day takes determination, perseverance, and tenacity. This is because today’s propagators of false doctrine are masters of nuance. In regard to those who propagate the antinomian doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, the goal is to eliminate application of biblical imperatives by referring to such a use of God’s word as “living by lists,” “reducing the Bible to a book of rules,” etc. Of course, they don’t mention that the Bible has “rules” that are often stated in list form. Therefore, they carefully word their presentation so you will assume they are talking about people who use the Bible in a legalistic way. Meanwhile, they ignore practical application of the Scriptures while heavily emphasizing grace. Soon our particular efforts in sanctification will be buried and forgotten (out of sight, out of mind) while subtle / negative references to the application of biblical imperatives slowly throws one more shovel-full of dirt on the hole that obedience is buried in.
This method is also accompanied by synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we are sanctified by the same monergistic gospel that saved us, we can’t do anymore with the Law in sanctification than we did with it in justification. After all, one of the Gospel Sanctification mantras is “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” D.A. Carson, in an interview with Tim Keller concerning the T4G 2011 conference, shared that the main thrust of that conference will be to teach pastors how to “drive toward Christ and the gospel” and to show what “Biblical Theology [ie., Geerhardus Vos hermeneutics] looks like” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you [always] get to Jesus.” Let me rephrase that. What D.A. Carson really means is they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it. If the “same” gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, then sanctification is monergistic. If it’s not monergistic, then it’s not the same gospel that saved us. They can only have it both ways until people start asking questions. Later in the interview, D.A. Carson disingenuously notes that several perspectives on preaching will be presented at the same conference; supposedly, unlike other conferences (who only present the Grammatical Historical perspective). In saying this, he assumes the listeners will not associate the term “Biblical Theology” with hermeneutics. Let me also add that it’s not really about always getting to Jesus; it’s about always getting to “what Jesus has done, not what we have done” (another GS mantra often used by Micheal Horton). “Jesus / gospel” replaces “justification,” and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.
This now brings me to the significance of an excerpt from the Jerry Bridges book, “Transformed by Grace.” Jerry Bridges (who coined the phrase, “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”) is not any different from most GS advocates; it’s difficult to find definitive grounds for argument in their nuanced approach. Most of the time you will have to read several pages in order to find clear statements that reflect what they really believe. In this case, another blogger supplied the following excerpt from the above mentioned book. My comments are in brackets:
“Paul’s call to stand firm in our freedom in Christ and not let ourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery is just as valid today with our rules as it was in the Galatians’ day with the Mosaic law… God gave us our spiritual Magna Charta.
[Paul’s call to freedom in Christ regards freedom from being justified by the Law. Here, Bridges extrapolates that idea into the realm of sanctification. As I mentioned above in my introduction, we see Bridges slight the idea of applying biblical rules to life, but doing so subtly by calling them “our” rules. But since the Mosaic Law is part of scripture, and he makes that comparison, he is really talking about the application of the Mosaic Law (where applicable, ie., Ephesians 6:1) to life. Also, though Jesus’ yoke is light, we, in fact, are His slaves and were “bought with a price.” ]
Through Paul, He called us to be free: ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ In fact, God doesn’t just call us to freedom, he actually exhorts us to stand firm in our freedom – to resist all efforts to abridge or destroy it.
[Yes, in regard to justification, BUT as Christians, we actually find our freedom in aligning our lives with God’s law:
James 1:25
“But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
James 2:12
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom….”
Furthermore, Jesus said that the “truth will set you free,” and “thy word is truth.” Freedom comes from applying God’s word to life. We are set free by being slaves to Christ’ lordship, that isn’t the same as being in bondage to the Law in an attempt to be justified by it.]
Despite God’s call to be free and His earnest admonition to resist all efforts to curtail it, there is very little emphasis in Christian circles today on the importance of Christian freedom. Just the opposite seems to be true.
[But we are called to freedom on two fronts: freedom from the Law for justification, and freedom from the bondage of sin by obeying the perfect Law of liberty. Bridges only refers to the one. Why? Because in his mind, they are both the same, that’s why. However, in our day, the freedom that is not being emphasized is freedom for the believer by PROPERLY aligning his or hers life with the word of God.]
Instead of promoting freedom, we stress our rules of conformity.
[They’re not OUR rules, they are the Lord’s rules. Please note that a “lord” usually has rules he wants you to follow.]
Instead of preaching living by grace, we preach living by performance. Instead of encouraging new believers to be conformed to Christ, we subtly insist that they be conformed to our particular style of Christian culture. Yet, that’s the bottom line effect of most of our emphases in Christian circles today.
[ Living to love Christ by keeping His Law and striving to please Him accordingly is not “living by performance,” that is a typical GS red herring. Paul said whether in the body or apart, “we make it our goal to please Him,” and obviously, the word of God is the standard for that. Also, notice the *us against them* mentality in the suggestion that supposed graceless living is a “Christian culture” in most “Christian circles today.” This is indicative of the GS mentality that believes they are on a mission from God to save the church from the Dark Ages of synergistic sanctification.]
For example, many people would react negatively to my quoting only part of Galatians 5:12, ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ Despite the fact that this statement is a complete sentence, they would say, ‘But that’s not all of the verse. Go on to quote the remainder: ‘But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.’…
[Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the Galatians were being tempted to go back to a system that taught you had to keep the Law to maintain your salvation, NOT the idea that you keep the Law to love Christ and to please Him. We believe that we are kept by the power of God, but that does not negate our call to uphold the Law of God!]
The person who reacts this way has made my point. We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism.
[Here, Bridges makes the shocking suggestion that being concerned with keeping the Law is not “guarding” our freedom, and that being more afraid of indulging in the sinful nature than guarding our “freedom” is legalism. This troubling assertion should speak for itself.]
Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” – Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace, pp. 121-122
[ In this last statement, Bridges notes another GS staple often propagated by Paul Tripp and David Powlison; namely, our efforts as Christians to uphold the Law leads to self-righteousness and religious pride, and to make such an effort is “focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” Instead, we should supposedly only focus on “what Jesus has DONE rather than our OWN efforts,” which supposedly leads to an automatic kind of obedience earmarked by a willing and joyful spirit / attitude.]
How can bridges talk so strongly about one freedom without at least mentioning the other? Because that’s the freedom (through the Law in sanctification) he doesn’t want to emphasize even though his audience is Christian. Therefore, what Bridges is actually teaching is a gospel-driven bondage that averts Christians away from an effort to apply God’s word to life. Not only that, we now have conferences that are teaching leaders to propagate this approach wholesale throughout the church; true freedom as bondage. Buyer beware.
paul
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
Dr. Jay’s Hopeful Post and the Evil Twins
On the Institute For Nouthetic Studies blog, the comment option is turned off, so I will have to make my own here. Actually, of all people, I thought about foregoing any reaction to this very unique, if not historic, post (“Contemplation?” http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?cat=39 second from top) Why? I ain’t tellin’, but I will discuss why I think it is at least unique, if not historic. But, I am going to exercise caution here because Adams does not name any specific doctrine, and it would also seem that it is the policy of INS not to name names (kinda reminds you of my blog, doesn’t it?) so, I want to be careful not to attach any references of my own not intended by the (run-on sentence ahead) father of having a clue of how to help people with the God breathed word and the terminator of the rumor that Sigmund Freud is smarter than God and often the victim of pretentious snot-nosed theologians who are jealous of what God has done through him and who often self-aggrandize themselves at his expense. Ooops, I let that slip, and it also reveals why I almost passed on this post; I have very strong opinions concerning the matter at hand. My conclusion will give you some idea as to why.
As one blogger put it, the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification is a “pet” of mine. Amen brother, and if you don’t like it, be sure to report me to the Humane Society because I mercilessly beat that doggy every day, because it is worthy of the hellish pit that it comes from. However, the subject of the Adams post is synonymous with the primary attribute of Gospel Sanctification; Adams did not say (in the post) that he is talking about Gospel Sanctification, but what he did say is the following: “The problem with the teaching is that it tends to confuse justification with sanctification.” That’s exactly what Gospel Sanctification does (as the title implies). So apparently, if Adams isn’t talking about the same doctrine, there could be at least one set of doctrinal evil twins running about. Now, this is what’s unique about his post, if not historic: nobody, as far as leaders who have national recognition; have ever discussed, or are talking about, these evil twins. The Adams post is a first. This is amazing because the one twin that I know was born around 1980, at Westminster hospital. Several leaders like John MacArthur, RC Sproul, and others, hang-out at conferences with those who propagate the evil twin I know, but they never talk about the evil twins. Therefore, it has been suggested to me by others that the evil twin I know isn’t really evil. But I don’t know about that, because here is what Dr. Jay said about the evil twin he has seen: “Will this seemingly Romish quietistic mysticism—or, at least, what borders on it help one to grow?” [the question is rhetorical]. Hmmm, maybe the problem is what Dr. Jay also said about the twin he has seen: “….it is ill-defined, and hard for those who don’t believe it to express it in words.” Yep, just like the twin I know; and therefore, I offer my excuses for Sproul and MacArthur.
Before I go on, let me use this paragraph to further bolster my theory that there are two doctrinal evil twins running about. The following attributes described by Adams are also exactly like the doctrine I have come to know, and therefore, I assume they are twins:
1. “The problem with the teaching is that it tends to confuse justification with sanctification.” Apparently, the twin I know is a little more forceful. Her minions make every effort to synthesize the two, often using Scripture that pertains to justification to make sanctification points.
2. ….”they [the several verses he cites in his post] all emphasize that one must put forth effort in order to grow more like Christ….it [the evil twin he has seen] seems to set forth the opposite.” Hmmm, I must admit, this is a little different from the one I know, which doesn’t “seem” to say that, but says in no uncertain terms that our efforts in the sanctification process is a false gospel. Could my theory be wrong?
3. “While properly emphasizing the cross of Christ as central to our Christian faith, it goes on in one way or another to suggest that contemplation of what Jesus did on the cross is the way to spiritual growth.” Oh yes, this is exactly like the one I know. Her minions say: “the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us”; “behold [contemplate] as a way of becoming”; “we must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”; “never, never [stated 21 more times] teach that we are saved by the gospel and then move-on to something else”; “there is a gospel application to every event of life, that’s why the Bible is so big”; [no, I swear, I didn’t make that one up] “If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel.”
4. “….this method of sanctification seems to be a substitute for effort extended in the process of growth.” Right. The one I know teaches that “we can no more obey the law than we can overcome the law of gravity.” Likewise, not only does it teach that we don’t exercise effort in the sanctification process, it teaches that Christ obeys for us; they call it the “imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Here is a good summary quote from a minion of the evil twin that I have seen:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Wow, so if you don’t believe the doctrine of the evil twins, “you loose both” [justification and sanctification]. Soooo, does Mac and RC still believe in synergistic sanctification? They aren’t hanging out with people who think they are lost are they? Hey, I’m just asking!
I promised to tell why this issue is so dear to me. In, or about 1988, I barley got myself to a counseling appointment located in Springboro, Ohio. I had one foot in a mental institution and one foot on a banana peel. I would have made a great poster child for Gospel Sanctification and Christian Hedonism. Though I was a hard worker (career wise), I was spiritually lazy except for studying “the gospel”; and my own joy in the Lord was certainly the goal beyond all else. I arrived at the counseling appointment perplexed as to why my “total dependence” on God found me in such a state. The counselor, In a manner of speaking, was a disciple of Jay Adams. Much to my dismay, he emphasized obedience to the weightier matters of God’s word in regard to life and godliness. I had been to seminary, and was well-schooled in the Scriptures (supposedly), but in fact, was clueless.
But I had a new hope. Instead of only crying out to God on my knees for hours, and from the deepest parts of my soul, I learned that no matter how bad I felt, I could do something; and it would actually please the God of our universe sitting upon his thrown. This seemed to be an awesome privilege to me. “The War Within,” a book by Adams, also supplied a profound help during this time. Furthermore, though it was difficult, I continued to work, and listened to John MacArthur tapes while doing so. The series I was listening to was from the book of Daniel. MacArthur, in the series, strongly emphasized the spiritual character of Daniel as revealed by the Holy Spirit. I remember driving home, encouraged from the tapes, saying to myself: “look at me, look at me, I don’t want to be like this! I want to be like Daniel!” Again, I thank my God that I was not listening to some spiritual guru who thinks that every verse in the Bible is about the good news (however glorious), relegating the awesome example of Daniel to “pictures of the gospel.” Additionally, I thank God that I did not instead, end-up in the hands of someone who would have merely shown me a better way to do what I was already doing.
It is time for leaders with national recognition to get a spine, a bag of sand, and a stick. They need to empty the bag of sand between them and others, and draw a line in that sand, thus distinguishing between themselves, and the latter-day antinomians that Paul the apostle said would come.
Adams said the following in the same post regarding the doctrine in question: “People are confused by it, and have begun to ask questions” In regard to people starting to ask questions; I hope this is certainly the case, but the confusion of God’s people still continues to reap the indifference of leaders with national recognition, while applauding those who write books that would be the envy of Timothy Leary.
It is my prayer that we will all hear these words from our Savior: “Well done faithful servant.” But for the love of everything on Earth; it’s a verb phrase and we are the subject. Have we completely lost our minds?
paul
David Powlison’s Eisegesis Kingdom
“Indeed, David Powlison believes that the church ‘forgets things’ and apparently, the most recent thing it forgot about is the true gospel. But never fear, CCEF’s ‘research and development’ team is hard at work setting things straight, until the next discovery that will be ‘tested’ in a local church near you.”
“It’s just no big secret that Powlison believes that everything having breath upon the earth can contribute to biblical understanding, even psychiatry.”
As a former rabid advocate of biblical counseling, I now have grave concerns about where it is going and what it produces. One particular red flag caused me to start thinking in 1998, and I have been cautiously observing ever since. What was the red flag? While the church was barley absorbing the earthquake caused by two men of diverse theology, Jay Adams and Dave Hunt, then came the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF) saying that both of them were wrong. Though Jay Adams was on the scene making waves before Dave Hunt concerning so-called “Christian psychology” and his contention against it, Dave Hunt was really the one who broke down the barriers, making a wide road for Jay Adams and his objective, biblical alternative to the integration of Freudian depth psychology with the pure milk of the word. But at the time, I was thinking that when you already have a reformation of sorts going on and someone comes along saying that they have one also; “hey! not them, us,” something just didn’t smell right. As I have observed the debate over the years and where it has all ended up, I hear Ozzy Osborne singing “Crazy Train” in the background.
In today’s American church culture, one sits in stupefied bewilderment as you look at the plain sense of Scripture in comparison to what the theological rock stars of our age are teaching and propagating. How did this happen? Simple, eisegesis verses exegesis; and the capital city of the Eisegesis kingdom is CCEF, and its reigning king is David Powlison. As the most recognized leader in the CCEF organization (the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary), he passionately proclaims the sufficiency and final authority of God’s word in counseling, but I have a few questions. My questions come from an interview posted on the “Nine Marks” blog; comments by Powlison that are indicative of his counseling philosophy and often repeated by him:
http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598016%7CCIID2448362,00.html
He is quoted as follows:
“The church forgets things. The church rediscovers things. But when it rediscovers something, it’s different because it’s always in a different sociocultural-historical moment, and different forces are at work.”
What church is he talking about? Christ said that He would build His church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I assume that Powlison isn’t speaking for the whole church and all of its history. However, the bigger question is how Powlison thinks that truth is “rediscovered.” But first, the idea that the truth, once rediscovered is “different” because of the “sociocultural-historical moment,” should give one serious pause. What in the Ozzie Osborne does that mean?! The Apostle Peter addressed his primary concern in regard to what Christians might forget. As a matter of fact, because he knew his departure was near, it was the one teaching that he was emphasizing that he did not want them to forget. If they didn’t forget that teaching, it would enable them to have a rich entry into the kingdom of heaven (2Peter 1:1-16). A “rich” entry into the kingdom of heaven? Sounds pretty good to me! If one is fearful of what the church may have forgotten, they should look where the Bereans looked to hold Paul’s (the apostle) feet to the fire, the Scriptures. Also, in regard to some concern over the “socio-cultural-historical moment,” the Apostle Paul and the Hebrew writer both cited Old Testament Scripture without any additional references outside of Scripture to validate its New Testament application, saying the very purpose of the prior writings (2-4 thousand years beforehand in some cases) were for that present-day teaching (1Cor. 10:6, 10:11, Heb. 11:1-12:1).
But it is clear from many of his writings that Powlison believes the study of general revelation is critical to a correct understanding of Scripture and its application. By general revelation, I mean anything that (according to Powlison) “God might have shown other people.” Powlison’s concept of “recycling” is well documented and I am not going to expound on it here. Suffice to say that in the same interview mentioned above, he said the following:
“Caring for the soul, which we try [try?] to do in biblical counseling, is not new. Two of the great pioneers in church history would be Augustine and Gregory the Great. Even secular people will credit Augustine’s Confessions as pioneering the idea that there is an inner life [ in essence, contemporary Depth Psychology verses Behavioristic Psychology]. Augustine did an unsurpassed job of tearing apart the various ways in which people’s desires become disordered” [like Freud’s theory that people are primarily driven by desire. Powlisons speech is always saturated with psycho-therapeutic references].
And:
“Gregory wrote the earliest textbook on pastoral care. He pioneered diverse ways of dealing with a fearful person, a brash and impulsive person, an angry person, an overly passive person. He broke out these different struggles and sought to apply explicitly biblical, Christ-centered medicine—full of Christ, full of grace, full of gospel, and full of the hard call of God’s Word to the challenges of life.”
Besides not being impressed with Augustine for various reasons in addition to his anti-Semitism and allegorical approach to Scripture, the only Gregory the Great that I know of is the former Catholic Pope of A.D 540. Again, I would not be comfortable with gleaning “insight” from a Roman Catholic Pope for purposes of biblical counsel. It’s just no big secret that Powlison believes that everything having breath upon the earth can contribute to biblical understanding, even psychiatry. We see a hint of this in the same article from Nine Marks:
“The modern psychologies present a tremendously stimulating, informative, and threatening challenge. These psychologies are stimulating because they push us to ask questions that we may not have already considered. They’re informational because they are very observant. They’re threatening because they are a self-conscious alternative to the church and would love to take over the care of souls. They’re willing to do our job for us, letting us be a religious club that does good works while they deal with the deep stuff and the long stuff.”
It is clear that Powlison believes psychology and many other disciplines of non-spiritual discernment (notice how he concedes that they deal with the “deep stuff” while we only partake in “good works”) are indispensable in a full understanding of the Scriptures. If you doubt that, here is what he is quoted as saying, again, in the same article:
“CCEF is also unique even within the wider biblical counseling movement in two more ways. One is what I call “R&D”—a research and development purpose. We don’t believe that saying “biblical counseling” means that we have figured it all out. We are a work in progress. We have a core commitment to push, to develop, to build, to tackle a new problem.”
Powlison then explains further what the strength of this “research and development” is:
“CCEF has five full-time faculty members who share a wonderful synergy, in part because you have people who all have a dual expertise—a primary commitment to Bible and theology, coupled with some other expertise. Our director, Dr. Tim Lane, was a pastor for years. He brings a sensitivity to how counseling ministry links to the other aspects of church life. Dr. Mike Emlet is an M.D. who had a family practice for years. He’s the scientist who brings an awareness of mind-body issues like psychiatric diagnosis and medications. Dr. Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology and a burning interest in the nuances of actual counseling moments and how counseling actually happens. Winston Smith stays very current with the psycho therapeutic world. He has given his life to issues of marriage and family and group dynamics. My graduate work (besides Bible and theology) was in the history of psychiatry, history of science, and history of medicine. I am only just speaking of the faculty and not speaking of various members of the much wider counseling staff who have various interests. It’s a very rich environment with a common commitment to biblical counseling.”
Powlison continually admits that CCEF endeavors to test every theory it can find with Scripture, believing that there is an element of truth in all of it that will lend more understanding to the Scriptures. While this should scare the Ozzy Osborne out of every thinking Christian; instead, Christians are immediately guzzling down everything that comes out of CCEF without any hesitation whatsoever. When you think of the Apostle Paul himself being deprived of such (carte blanche acceptance from the likes of the Bereans and access to “R and D”), it baffles the mind. Furthermore, this approach (R&D) is what developed the gospel-driven life movement as we know it today. Otherwise known as gospel sanctification, it has its own concept of the gospel, its own hermeneutic, its own theory of change, and its own experience. It is the “Christo-centered” approach Powlison speaks of in the same interview. Let there be no doubt about it, much of the present-day gospel-driven (or “New Calvinism”) theology is the brain child of the CCEF eisegesis soup factory (through Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change”) and the brand is chock-full of everything that Popes and Sigmund Freud have to offer and deemed biblical by CCEF “experts.”
So then, In classic CCEF form, and their scientific approach to biblical truth, it should be no surprise that the book that articulates Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change, “How People Change,” by Paul Tripp, was tested in a number of churches before it was published in 2006 via a pilot program of sorts (“How People Change”, [“How Christ Changes us by His Grace”] Leader’s guide, pg. F.3. Copyright 2003; published in 2005). Pray tell, why would you need to test a studious work from the word of God? It is either rightly divided or it isn’t, why would you need to test it?
Indeed, David Powlison believes that the church “forgets things,” and apparently, the most recent thing it forgot about is the true gospel. But never fear, CCEF’s “research and development” team is hard at work setting things straight, until the next discovery that will be “tested” in a local church near you.
So are some results in? Yes, I think so. You ever heard of Neuro-linguistic Programming? Many psychologists consider it to be the most powerful and effective program for changing people available today. This alone, when Powlison’s mindset is considered, makes it very improbable that CCEF has not considered the possibility of some biblical truth to be found in NLP. Information on NLP is easy to get, a Google search will quickly produce more material than you could read in a year.
Advocates of NLP have noted the similarities and value of CCEF’s teachings in regard to NLP, especially the writings of Paul David Tripp,
whose book “How People Change,” as I mentioned before, is based upon David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change.” Tripp is sometimes quoted by Armand Kruger, the director of South Africa’s Institute of Neuro-Semantics, because of NLP concepts that can be found in “War of Words,” a book also written by Tripp. This shouldn’t be a surprise because NLP is the study of how words and communication have the power to bring about change. Likewise, the importance of asking ourselves certain questions to evaluate the inner-man is primarily a NLP concept, and strongly emphasized as well in Paul Tripp’s book, “How People Change” (Not to mention many more uncanny paralells).
David Field, a UK theologian and seminary professor who advocates the integration of NLP with Reformed theology, and especially counseling, quotes David Powlison extensively. He also confirmed his belief in the similarities of both teachings (CCEF and NLP) in a personal correspondence between the two of us. Why would this be a surprise? In the above cited interview, Powlison openly admits that Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology. NLP is a major component of neuro-psychology, this is practically common knowl-
edge. Furthermore, in churches closely associated with CCEF, the NLP concept of visualizing possible future events and re-framing them (or in this case, using the feelings invoked to reorient the desires of the heart), can be found in teaching series using Paul Tripp’s “War of Words.” An actual copy of a study sheet (that advocates visualization) associated with one of these studies can found here:
Click to access homework%20pdf.pdf
(Note how the homework assignment directly violates Paul’s imperative to think on what Is true [Phil.
4:8] ).
In addition, during a face to face meeting with myself and elders of a church closely associated with CCEF, the elders would not deny that NLP was integrated into their teachings or the teachings of CCEF, of which their lessons were based on. They would not even say that they were unaware of any facts either way. Let me be clear, they would not even say: “We don’t know.” “We doubt it.” “no, that’s ridiculous,” or even, “your stupid,” though I specifically asked them to tell me the latter.
What is in the CCEF soup? Hard telling, but the results are beginning to show. As I look out on the present reformed landscape, I have to believe the infamous Jim Jones would weep with envy. Powlison routinely espouses concepts that directly contradict the plain sense of Scripture, and nobody blinks, but rather run to the vat with hoses equipped with motor-driven suction. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that CCEF be held to the same standard that Paul was? Furthermore, in the same cited interview, he boldly
proclaims that he wrote a whole book (“Speak Truth in Love”) based on removing the definite article “the” from Ephesians 4:15. No English translation does that, indicating that the text speaks of Scriptural truth specifically, not the “big” and “little” truth that Powlison speaks of to build a case for “all truth is God’s truth” and problem-centered counseling. This can also be seen clearly in the context of the text, where just prior to the conjunction, Paul is talking about false doctrine.
I close with a suggestion for a “research and development” wing within the church. The apostles had one. You can find it in Acts 6:1-7. It entailed appointing men to oversee the needs of the church so elders could prayerfully search the Scriptures while holding each other accountable. I believe that verse seven speaks to the results. To suggest that the apostles also perused all the wisdom of that day to aid in the process of the “ministry of the word” (verse 4), is ridiculous and silly. Peter himself, the rock of the church, advocated no more than the “PURE” milk of the word (nothing mixed in, in case you missed the point). Pastors who let CCEF indiscriminately pump information into the minds of their people are asleep at the switch, and worse.
Again, the Bereans would not even give the Apostle Paul a pass and were complimented by the Holy Spirit accordingly (Acts 17:11). Additionally, Paul advocated no less for even himself (1Cor. 11:1); therefore, who in the Ozzy Ozzborn is David Powlison?
paul
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment