Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 2
In part 1, I mention that I will dissect Michael Horton’s written denial that he is an antinomian by reiterating his antinomian doctrine in the same denial. My comments are in [brackets]:
“What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel!
[No, what’s striking is Paul is refuting those who teach that less law leads to more gospel. In fact, Paul does answer with the law: ‘Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?’ John said the biblical definition of sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4). Paul’s point following is: to sin in order to get more grace is to contradict the very purpose of grace, which is to defeat sin itself (1Jn 3:8). Secondly, why would grace break the power of sin if more sin brought forth more grace (Rom 6:6)? That’s Paul’s point – not what Horton says. Paul doesn’t preach grace to the exclusion of the law in sanctification. In fact, one definition of biblical sanctification is abstinence from what the law instructs us to avoid (1Thess 4:3). You are saying that Paul emphasized grace to the exclusion of the law in regard to the antinomian question (‘not with the law’ / ‘but with more gospel’). That’s not true.]
In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little!
[That’s not true either. Paul said they are trying to get more grace with less law, the opposite of what you are saying.]
They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification.
[No they don’t – they don’t see guilt as a problem at all because we are supposedly ‘dead to the law,’ ie., free from its obligations in sanctification. Why would guilt even be an issue?]
The danger of legalism becomes apparent not only when we confuse law and gospel in justification, but when we imagine that even our new obedience can be powered by the law rather than the gospel.
[Nobody ever said the law ‘powers’ our obedience. It is the standard that we align our life with while trusting God for the necessary strength to do so. You use the term ‘new obedience’ which is a gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology term that refers to Christ obeying for us. If we are not obligated to uphold the law, but rather believe that Christ obeys it for us, that’s still antinomianism because it excludes the law from our realm of responsibility.]
The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience.
[This is the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology concept of law negative, which means the law serves the exact same purpose in sanctification that it does in justification – to show a supposed inability to keep the law and reveal our ‘helplessness’ (in keeping the law). However, the Bible doesn’t say that the application of the law to our lives leads to ‘helplessness,’ but rather happiness and blessing (James 1:25), and strength (Matt 7:24,25). Also, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology doctrine also says that any effort on our part to obey the law is an attempt to establish our own righteousness apart from Christ, which can be seen in ‘….it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ.’ Furthermore, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology element of Christian hedonism can also be seen in Horton’s statement which teaches that true obedience is always accompanied by a willing, joyful spirit. That’s how we supposedly know that it is Christ obeying through us: ‘….it also directs us in grateful obedience.’]
No one who says this can be considered an antinomian. [Gag! Why not? What Horton is saying is antinomian!]
However, it’s not a matter of finding the right “balance” between law and gospel, but of recognizing that each does different work.
[The law has different roles in justification and sanctification. But gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology teaches that the role of the law is the same in both.]
We need imperatives—and Paul gives them. But he only does this later in the argument, after he has grounded sanctification in the gospel.”
[The indicative does not always precede the imperative in Scripture. And in some cases, the imperative is based on something Christ has not even done yet, which doesn’t include the finished work of the gospel ( Heb 10:24,25 and 2Peter 3:11,12).]
paul
Is Gospel-Driven Sanctification Really “Sonship” Theology?
Two weeks ago, sitting in my office with my feet propped on a bookcase and chatting with Susan, I happened to be looking up at my Jay Adams shelf. Since it had been too long since I’d read any of his material (at least two weeks), I put my feet down on the floor and began perusing what I haven’t lent to other people; and thinking, “Hmmm, wonder what this is: ‘Biblical Sonship.’”
I always read the preface. So you have the cover, cover page, copyright, contents, and preface. I was reading the first page of the preface, and in the third paragraph, when I read the following: “It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith in the good news.”
Barely a hundred words into the book, and I was stunned. That is the exact same thesis as gospel sanctification, a movement I have been researching for three years. The movement (gospel sanctification, or “gospel-driven sanctification”) is huge and its propagators are the who’s who of the evangelical world that they are supposedly trying to save: DA Carson, Michael Horton, Paul David Tripp, David Powlison, Tim Keller, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Devers, Francis Chan, Jerry Bridges, and many, many others. The theology is also propagated by several missionary alliances and church planting organizations like the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa.
As Jay Adams notes in his book, the Sonship movement was started by Jack Miller, a former professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary who is now deceased. According to other sources, Jack Miller’s epiphany concerning Sonship occurred while he was on an extended trip in Spain with his family. An article I read by Geoff Thomas in Banner of Truth was written in 2003, and he mentions the trip to Spain as being about twenty years prior; so figure 1980, or around that time, for the birth of Sonship theology.
In all of my studies concerning gospel sanctification, I had never heard of Jack Miller or Sonship theology, but it became clear from the Jay Adams book that the two theologies are the same thing with the usual peripheral aberrations from the basic form; and the basic form being, but not confined to, progressive justification, sanctification by faith alone, substitutionary monergistic sanctification, and the total depravity of the saints. There is absolutely no doubt – this theology turns orthodoxy completely upside down while the intestinal fortitude of the rest of the evangelical community wanes. Apparently, big names like Jerry Bridges and others are like GM, they’re just too big to fail. As one brother wrote to me: “How dare you criticize DA Carson, one the greatest theological minds of our day!” Furthermore, as Dr. Peter Masters has noted, it is interesting that doctrine doesn’t matter if you are “gospel-driven” in your beliefs. For example, Charismatic and emergent church leaders are readily excepted into the new Calvinism clan if they are “gospel-centered.”
But what came first? Sonship, or gospel sanctification? Did gospel-driven sanctification come from Sonship? Is Jack Miller the father of new Calvinism? It’s looking that way. Historical precedent for gospel sanctification (GS) cannot be found before (approx.)1980. It is the brainchild of Dr. David Powlison, professor at CCEF, the biblical counseling wing of Westminster Seminary. GS came out of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” curriculum developed and taught by him at Westminster. Two of his former students articulated the doctrine in the book “How People Change.” This is made clear by Powlison in the forward he wrote for the same book. Shortly prior to the book’s release, the doctrine’s theories were tested in local churches via a pilot program. In the reformed church I attended that was part of the pilot program, the curriculum was taught in a Sunday school class with a limited number of participants.
“How People Change” articulates a theology that is virtually identical to Sonship theology. And, it just so happens that David Powlison himself claims that Jack Miller is his “mentor.” He recently stated this as fact while teaching a seminar at John Piper’s church, and in the midst of fustigating Jay Adams for criticizing Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves everyday” *see endnote. I thought this phrase was originally coined by Jerry Bridges, but Jerry Bridges attributes the phrase to Jack Miller in the preface of “The Disciplines of Grace.” Tim Keller, a looming figure in the new Calvinism / gospel-driven / gospel sanctification movement, was teaching GS under the “Sonship” nomenclature as late as 2006. On the Puritan Board, a faint cry for help was uttered by a person saying the following: “ The Sonship theology of Tim Keller has taken a hold of the church I attend. Am I the only one, or does anyone else have a problem with this?”
Furthermore, my research would strongly suggest that the development of other contemporary theologies like New Covenant Theology, (many attribute its conception to Westminster Seminary sometime during the 80’s or 90’s), heart theology (definitely conceived at Westminster during the 90’s), redemptive-historical hermeneutics, and Christian hedonism (latter conceived by John Piper in the 80’s) were primarily driven by the need to validate Sonship / GS doctrine. Sonship needs the NCT perspective on the law, the supposed practical application of finding idols in the heart via heart theology, the perspective of how Sonship is experienced through Christian hedonism, and more than anything else, an interpretive redemptive prism supplied by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But why has gospel sanctification enjoyed freedom from ridicule not afforded to Sonship? They are, for all practical purposes, the same exact thing and encompass many of the same teachers. Probably because gospel sanctification has the word “gospel” in it. In this age of hyper-grace, people will shy away from any appearance of being against “the gospel.” I have to believe that the movement has traded the Sonship label, with its share of bullet holes, for the “gospel-driven” label. Sonship has been besieged by two works, the book by Jay Adams and a lengthy article by Van Dixhoorn, a former student at Westminster. Sonship has also been pelted with its share of the “antinomian” accusation, and rightfully so. In my second addition of “Another Gospel,” I write the following on page 78:
“….if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.”
At least one book, a lengthy pamphlet, and several articles defend Sonship against Adams and Van Dixhoorn, but the theological arguments are woefully lame. Nevertheless, my point is that gospel sanctification, though the same thing, is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout the church without controversy while unifying camps that are theologically suspect to say the least.
It is what it is; while mad theological scientist concoct all sorts of new potions in the lab and send their minions out to commit first-degree doctrinal felonies in broad daylight, while many who profess to love the real gospel say nothing. I pray that will change, while thanking God for those who love the truth more than the acceptance and praises of men.
Endnote:
Powlison failed to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book that is an apology against Sonship theology. Failure to mention that put Adams in an anti-gospel light as well as depriving him of the ability to contextualize the criticism. As an aside, Powlison, in the same seminar, criticized “idol hunting”; but yet, he is the inventor of “X-ray questions”(which he also mentioned in positive terms without the “X-ray” terminology, but rather something like “reorienting questions”) which are designed to identify heart idols (see page 163 of “How People Change”). His mentor, Jack Miller, developed a complex system of idol hunting that included twenty different categories of heart idols (Jack Miller, “Repentance and the 20th Century Man”CLC 1998). This kind of disingenuous double-speak is commonplace within the movement.
The Problem With a Narrow Approach to Sanctification
The following quote concerns John Piper’s Christian Hedonism which is the articulation of how gospel sanctification is experienced. But, the same concerns expressed by Dr. Masters below can also be applied to gospel sanctification as a whole. Gospel sanctification applies, and confines sanctification to the same elements of justification which are much fewer; namely, by faith alone.
“But Dr Piper’s formula for its use undoubtedly alters the understanding of sanctification long held by believers in the Reformation tradition, because it elevates one Christian duty above all others.
Delighting in God, we repeat, is made the organising principle for every other spiritual experience and duty. It becomes the key formula for all spiritual vigour and development. Every other Christian duty is thought to depend on how well we obey this central duty of delighting in the Lord. The entire Christian life is simplified to rest upon a single quest, which is bound to distort one’s perception of the Christian life and how it must be lived.
Whatever the strengths of Dr Piper’s ministry, and there are many, his attempt to oversimplify biblical sanctification is doomed to failure because the biblical method for sanctification and spiritual advance consists of a number of strands or pathways of action, and all must receive individual attention. As soon as you substitute a single ‘big idea’ or organising principle, and bundle all the strands into one, you alter God’s design and method. Vital aspects of Truth and conduct will go by the board to receive little or no attention.”
~ Dr. Peter Masters
Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification: If it’s Both/and, He Doesn’t Say
I just finished Phillip Cary’s “Good News for Anxious Christians.” The book concerns what he calls, throughout the book, “the new evangelical theology.” According to Cary, this new theology creates unnecessary anxiety in and among Christians. He then cites ten “practical” things that the new evangelical theology says we should do that causes the anxiety, and why we really don’t need to do them, and thus eliminating the unnecessary angst. He also noted that this new theology damages Christians psychologically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually.
The book came to my attention when it was suggested to me that it was an apology against Gospel Sanctification. But when I did some research in regard to the author, it became apparent that he is an advocate of GS. This incited the following thought on my part: “Are there two GS camps?” So, when I encountered the following statement in the beginning of the book, I wasn’t surprised:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I posted a short article that focused on the one statement only: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/%E2%80%9Cthats-not-true%E2%80%9D-phillip-carys-gospel-sanctification-statement/
Nevertheless, other statements in the book seemed to be a direct protest against GS elements, though Cary does not specifically name what the “new evangelical theology” (hereafter “TNET”) is. The book was based on feedback he gets from his college students, so he is seeing the ground level effect of TNET firsthand. My strong suspicion is – he is seeing a variety unbiblical soundbites that Christians live by, but no doubt, some of them are spawns of the GS doctrine. So, what’s going on here?
I will summarize chapters in the book that clearly refute the GS doctrine, and chapters that hold the GS line, and then I will state my conclusions. As an aside, let me say that I believe chapter one addresses post-Christian thought (God speaks to us in small, still voices instead of Scripture, and we have to sort it out. Also see chapter 10), and not Gospel Sanctification. First, chapter three is a devastating argument against the GS tenets of Christ obeying for us, “yielding,” and the supposed evil of “trying to obey God by our own efforts.” It was also very confirming to hear from a well noted Christian thinker concerning the impact that this doctrine is having on people in real life. I was in a church that taught the GS doctrine, and Cary’s argumentative question on page 39 echoes the EXACT same question I often asked the leaders of that church: “…how do you know if you’re really letting God do it – or are you still just trying to do it in your own strength?” Cary then noted that the necessity of such a question is a “sign that something’s wrong.” However, before I continue, though they did not want to answer the question to me at the time, the answer is: when Christ is obeying for us, our response will be a “mere natural flow accompanied by overflowing joy” (ie., John Piper’s Christian Hedonism). They knew a truthful answer in accordance with the doctrine would have presented another caveat for debate / consideration.
Cary makes many powerful arguments against this notion in chapter three, including the following:
“At its sickest, the new evangelical theology is an attempt to deny the reality of God’s creation… [when God created the garden and put Adam there to maintain it – it was really Adam doing the work, not God] That’s what really happens when you get really serious about saying, ‘it wasn’t me; it was all God.’ This is a misunderstanding at best, a denial of the doctrine of creation at worst” (page 54).
Also, chapter three concludes with an orthodox statement that clearly propagates synergistic sanctification.
Throughout the book, Cary accuses TNET of implementing “either/or” when “both/and” should be applied. As one needs to note from our preceding consideration, to “obey in our own strength” implies that either your doing it, or God is, so if your at work, God isn’t. Cary states it this way:
“…in fact you’re always the one who’s doing it. The inner acts of your heart are always your own, even when they’re a result of God working in you.”
Cary then applies this to another one of his contentions in chapter five; specifically, the “either/or” application to love and duty (classic John Piper), or the same application to love and motives (classic Francis Chan). It is more than fair to say that Cary’s contention on page 86 could apply directly to John Piper’s Christian Hedonism:
“An especially twisted way of misdirecting our attention is to preach that we should do good things out of love, not duty. It’s perverse, in the first place, because people who genuinely love their neighbors are eager to do their duty – to keep their promises and obligations, for example – since this binds them to their neighbor’s and is therefore one of the most important ways of seeking their neighbor’s good. So people who love are people who do their duty. It’s clearly a both/and, not an either/or. And they’re strongly motivated to do their duty, rather than being motivated by the desire to be such loving people. That desire would twist their motivation back toward themselves – making it a concern for their own self-image, rather than for their neighbor’s good.”
Exactly. Love seeks the “good” or what’s best for our neighbor, regardless of how we feel about whatever we have to do to accomplish that. Also, as Cary notes, a concern about how we feel when we love makes it about us and introspection concerning our motives, not love. If Piper hears about this line of thought, he will have to take another sabbatical.
Chapters six and seven are a spot-on, biblical view of the relationship between feelings, love, and obedience. However, I will say that although the thoughts are very biblical, it’s peculiar that very few Scripture verses are cited in comparison to the volume of information, and the few verses that are cited do not reference or compliment any of the strong points. It is more than fair to say that this chapter is abundant fodder for a treatise against Christian Hedonism, but I have no idea whether that tenet of GS is what Cary would consider part of TNET. And before I get too far ahead, I might mention that chapter four strongly emphasizes the application of biblical imperatives to life, and the importance of “finding wisdom, and what is good, in the commandments of God” [paraphrase].
With that said, chapters nine and ten are right out of the Gospel Sanctification play-book, complete with a purely redemptive-historical viewpoint of the Scriptures and the dissing of practical application (but chapter seven is the epitome of practical application!). Page 167 seems to bolster the GS tenet of the total depravity of the saints, and also adding the following on page 168:
“On the other hand, if you want to be merciful and give people good news [ie., the gospel], you have to start by teaching them how to be sinners.”
Yikes! Do we really want our preaching to focus on getting Christians to see themselves as “sinners”!? Just about everywhere you poke chapters nine and ten, you get sanctification as justification:
“There’s no escaping the trap [of practical application] unless you believe that Christ came to save sinners and that includes you.”
Let me pause here and clarify something; when evangelicals talk about practical application, they are referring to “hear[ing] these words of mine and putting them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
Chapter nine is also heavy on the whole GS Bible as gospel narrative motif in which our goal is to “put ourselves in the narrative” rather than to “take something out” for practical application (see this post:
Lastly, though Cary emphasizes synergistic sanctification throughout the book, he also advocates the idea that the Scriptures are “the gospel” and “the gospel is not about what we do, but about what Christ does.” So in regard to the Scriptures and the use thereof, this seems to be the “either/or” approach that he disses elsewhere. There is also a very strong flavor of Michael Horton’s concept of, “trying to represent Christ with good behavior is an attempt to be the gospel rather than presenting the gospel.”
There is simply no doubt: Cary is presenting two distinct, opposing views in the same book with no logical conclusions connecting the two. Is it “both/and,” or “either/or”? He doesn’t say. However, his GS model, unlike the other camp, would NOT include New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, monergistic sanctification as the only true gospel (he just thinks it’s serious error), and Heart Theology (Cary believes change is effected by outside influences as well as inside influences). But, like the other camp, it would include the total depravity of the saints, and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic (all Scripture is about the gospel only). Other elements are inconclusive because of the contradictory concepts presented in the book (for instance, is the end-game of his model antinomianism? And, are saints totally depraved and spiritually dead, or just totally depraved?). Again, several elements are inconclusive because of the discontinuity between ideas in the book.
I will conclude by taking a stab at this. I think Cary is orthodox in most of his views concerning sanctification and offers brilliant insight into the subject as well. In fact, I will be using a lot of his material from this book at a men’s fellowship this month. But, is this a case in which Cary is enamored by the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and is just cramming it in to his perspective come heck or high water? It reminds me of watching football with Susan. She just can’t understand those runs where the running back goes crashing into the line for zero gain: “Why do they do that?! Run around them! That’s stupid! Well, Phillip Cary is far from being stupid, of course, but there is simply no connection of thought between his contradictory positions, which is strange. It seems like it would be easy enough to articulate a model that would be “both/and” like love and duty are both/and.
It would be an erroneous model, but he could have at least done that.
paul
“That’s Not True”: Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification Statement
I can tell Susan will be a huge help on the second edition of “Another Gospel” which is an apology against Gospel Sanctification. Basically, the doctrine makes sanctification and justification the same thing. However, I never cease to be amazed at how difficult it is for Christians to get their mind around this doctrine and its ramifications. One reason is the fact that the following is true: both sanctification and justification share some of the same progressive elements, but GS makes them entirely synonymous which translates, for all practical purposes, into Antinomianism which has always been deemed heretical by evangelicals.
Susan seems to have a decent grasp on several issues spawned by GS, but like many, she is still working at putting it all together. Then it happened. We were at a basketball game and she picked up a book I had brought with me, opened it, and just started reading. Then, about a minute later, she said the following: “That’s not true.” I then inquired, “what isn’t true?” She pointed me to the Preface where Phillip Carey writes the following in “Good News for Anxious Christians”:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I then replied to her: “Honey, that’s Gospel Sanctification.” Ah, the power of concise statements, and it’s very unlikely this essay won’t be added to the book in revised form. First, most proponents of GS recognize that the doctrine is not orthodox. This can be seen in Cary’s admission via the first sentence: “Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe.” No Phillip, many of us find it odd, not just “some”. Like another advocate of GS said, “the vast majority” of Christians find it odd (Tullian Tchividjian). Another advocate, Paul David Tripp, described those who find it odd as “hordes of.” This is a characteristic of those who propagate GS – they think they are modern-day reformers. In fact, Michael Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” The arrogance that comes with this mentality lags not far behind.
Secondly, we see the GS tenet of justification not being a one time, final act of God in the following two sentences: “I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure out how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives.” Though advocates of GS deceptively refer to this as “progressive sanctification,” it’s really progressive justification which is totally unorthodox. Another example of this would be Paul Tripp’s belief that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” and not glorification. If you think it smacks of a daily re-saving / salvation, consider this comment made on Justin Taylor’s blog:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins.”
Next, we see the GS tenet of sanctification by faith alone in this sentence: “ We become new people in Christ by faith alone…” Again, another tenet that is totally unorthodox. JC Ryle said:
“It thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
But, keep in mind, according to the GS doctrine, sanctification is justification.
Next, we see the tenet of “the imputed active obedience of Christ”( Another way advocates state IAOC is “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event”) in this sentence from the same aforementioned statement: “We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.” So, if we can’t even let God enable us, who obeys? Jesus does, he obeys for us. This is also indicative of the GS tenet that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ while we remain “totally depraved,” and “enslaved” to sin. Obviously, if we are still totally depraved, we can’t obey, Jesus must obey for us. This tenet is propagated throughout “How People Change,” a book written by Paul Tripp.
Lastly, we see the GS proclamation that co-laboring with Christ in the sanctification process is a false gospel ( …”not by our good works”). Paul Tripp states this in no uncertain terms when he said that even the passive endeavor of changing our thinking to align with Scripture effectively “denies the work of Christ as Savior.” He has also described any effort of ours at all in the sanctification process as “Christless activism.” In fact, this is also Michael Horton’s thesis for his book “Christless Christianity.”
So there you have it. The tenets of GS: progressive justification (which excludes sanctification); sanctification by faith alone; the total depravity of the saints; the imputation of obedience (Christ obeys for us); and monergistic sanctification (the only true gospel).
The doctrine is propagated by many well known, supposedly mainline evangelical leaders of our day. Primarily, it boils down to being an antinomian, let go and let God theology. How the doctrine articulates the use of the gospel only in the sanctification process is another body of information.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments