Why “Lawless” Equals “Heartless”
Foul doctrine always has consequences. One of the many unfortunate consequences seen in the “Gospel-Driven Life” movement is the merciless, cold-blooded behavior of its leaders and followers. I have counseled spouses who have begged their partners not to divorce them because the marriage “doesn’t look like the gospel.” I have looked into begging eyes pleading for me to explain how “elders” could counsel people to do things that plainly contradict the literal, plain sense of Scripture. Apparently, their broken hearts just didn’t understand that all Scripture must be seen in its “gospel context.”
I have seen the hostile takeover of churches and listened to the many testimonies; for example, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church where those who took over mercilessly trampled underfoot the memory and work of James D. Kennedy. Whether he was your cup of tea or not is beside the point. I used to attend an early morning Bible study with a group of men in which an “elder” of the Sonship variety attended. He had a reputation for being a very tender, loving, soft-spoken person. On more than one occasion, he shared his exasperation in regard to his terminally ill mother-in-law mourning the fact that she would not be around to see her grandchildren grow up. Stern-faced, he shared his disappointment that she was not rather rejoicing that she would soon be with the Lord. Apparently, she had a Grandchildren Idol.
I can’t help but to wonder if this is the result of GS’s devaluing of God’s law. Why do I say that? Well, observe what Christ said in Matthew, chapter four:
“At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Recently, John MacArthur wrote a book entitled, “Slave” in which he presented the idea that a translation fraud has been perpetrated in the English Bible regarding the word slave. Even though his approach was passive (the book lacked the usual Mac life application), and more or less presented the picture minus detailed life application, he hasn’t been invited to a GS function since the book’s publication. Apparently, even the suggestion that we are in any way, shape, or form, slaves to Christ is more than the GS brain-trust can handle. Well, Mac needs to write another book about the same fraud being perpetrated in regard to the word translated “wickedness” (most translations, “iniquity”) in this passage. He might as well—he’s in the doghouse anyway.
The word is “anomia.” It’s “nomia” (law) with the particle “a” prefixed to it, or “anti-law.” It is were we get the English word, “antinomian.” Some translations have “lawlessness” or better yet, “without the law.” The idea is being a rejecter of God’s law, and has very little to do with governmental laws, if anything. Take note: in the latter days, love will “grow” cold BECAUSE of antinomianism. A cold heart doesn’t cause lawlessness—lawlessness CAUSES the heart to become cold. So much for, “ALL change is from the inside out” (of course, ANY real change is impossible without the indwelling Holy Spirit).
Will my theory hold water? “Because” is a conjunction showing cause—let’s look at a verse with a conjunction that shows contrast: “Their hearts are callous and unfeeling,
but I delight in your law” (Psalms 119:70). Hence, those who delight in God’s law are contrasted with those who don’t; the lawless have callous, unfeeling hearts. Also, the Psalmist didn’t just ask God for compassion, curiously, he asked God’s compassion as found in His law: “Your compassion is great, O LORD; preserve my life according to your laws” (Psalms 119:156).
A movement that devalues God’s law—what’s that look like? It looks like Sonship and Gospel Sanctification: merciless, cold, and uncompassionate.
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
Comment By “Anodos” Is Indicative Of Sonship’s Dark Spirit
All false doctrine has its consequences. It’s difficult to write about what one encounters personally with those who propagate Sonship Theology and its offspring, Gospel Sanctification, but a recent comment by “Anodos” on the Tchividjian post is telling. He commented as follows:
“The Pharisees had their doctrine nailed down – they had studied scriptures and worked on it for hundreds of years. Jesus was crucified over a doctrinal issue. The Pharisees’ understanding of that doctrine was correct, but they did not know their God even when He stood face to face with them.
Why?
You have your orthodoxy all worked out, but your spirit is the same as the Pharisee. The next time you stand face to face with Christ, the tables will be turned. It will be He who says, “I do not know you, depart from me you worker of iniquity.”
Repent. Humble yourself and admit that you might not know all that you think you know. Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He will come to those who are spiritually impoverished, to those who are broken hearted and mourn.
Jesus is not a fact. He is a person. Eternal life is not knowing about Jesus, it is knowing Jesus. Your entrance into heaven will not be based on your works or your doctrine, but on whether Jesus knows you. This is a relationship, not a quiz.”
This statement is very, very Sonshippy, and characteristic of the mentality among Sonship’s Koolaid drinking faithful. First, we see the misrepresentation of the Pharisees as a device for promoting their false doctrine. Supposedly, the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and had a laser focus on correct doctrine, but missed the whole point of salvation which has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with knowing Christ as a “person.” Only problem is—that’s not true.
Anodos’ contention that the Pharisees had Jesus crucified over correct doctrine is a classic GS proposition, but doesn’t square with what Scripture states. Just imagine how intimidating this is to those who are under it; your best intentions in regard to following the truth could result in you being a Pharisee without realizing it. Moreover, since a relationship with Christ has nothing to do with the truth (“Jesus is not a fact. He is a person”), you wouldn’t dare go to the Scriptures and make your own assessment because that is truth-based / doctrine oriented. Therefore, you must be able ascertain what the Scriptures are teaching you about Jesus’ personhood for relationship purposes, and not knowledge. Since you wouldn’t normally try that at home—yep, you guessed it—better depend on those who are really, really good with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic. Do you think that I am insinuating that GS doctrine (which is based on Jesus as a “person [a no-brainer]—not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” [Paul Tripp]) relegates GS followers to a Pope-like dependence on their leaders for understanding the Scriptures? Absolutely.
The fact is: the Pharisees were the sultans of false doctrine and lawlessness. All of the trials leading up to Jesus’ execution were completely unlawful. Jesus made it clear that they changed the law and replaced it with their traditions. In fact, Jesus accused them of nullifying the law and making it “void” (Matthew 15:16). Since law (Scripture: see Matthew 5:18) determines doctrine, the Pharisees didn’t have correct doctrine. Obviously.
Hence, the idea heard constantly among the GS crowd: those who form their beliefs from biblical facts make the same mistake the Pharisees supposedly made. I have heard this from GS leaders firsthand. Only the gospel, as seen in the Scriptures, is “Spirit”; “facts” are the “letter” of the law –not the Spirit. Therefore, supposedly, the “letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” and they cite 2Corinthians 3:6 accordingly. Can I emphasize enough how dangerous this teaching is?
Secondly, this is postmodern thought. The following are statements by John MacArthur Jr. in “Truth War” concerning the Emergent Church and Postmodern thought. See if you can detect the parallels between GS hermeneutics / Anodos’ comments, and what MacArthur writes as follows:
“Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility” (page 16).
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, emphasis added).
“Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture” (Page 16).
Quoting John Armstrong, a proponent of the Emerging Church: “Theology must be a humble human attempt to ‘hear him’ – never about rational [again, my emphasis] approaches to text” (page 21).
Thirdly, Anodos displays a common propensity among GS advocates to proclaim dissenters as unregenerate. Notice that Anodos, like most GS advocates, base this on my exegetical view of Scripture. Anodos might note in the verse that he uses to condemn me that the word for “iniquity” is “anomia” which means “anti-law” (negative article “a” and “nomia” [law]). That sounds more like the GS crowd than me.
Lastly, Anodos’ comment is indicative of GS/Sonship’s inadequacy in presenting the gospel. “Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you,” is not how one gets saved. I was involved in a situation where I was asked to counsel an individual who was living in unspeakable sin. Later, we became disassociated with each other when he started counseling with a GS / Sonship “elder.” Some time later, I was informed that the counselee spent hours on his knees begging God to save him, and to no avail. Why? Apparently, the counselee had been taught by the GS counselor that before he could be saved, God had to show him his salvation as a “treasure chest of joy.”
Anodos, that’s why you and your GS cohorts are wicked false teachers. And frankly, I don’t care if your names are Anodos, John Piper, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Paul Tripp, Francis Chan, etc, etc, etc. I don’t care how well any of you speak, how well you dress, how many followers you have, or even how good you smell. Your vile doctrine is ruining people’s lives and I will contend against it until God gives me my last breath.
paul
Luke 24:27, and 44: Every Verse In The Bible Is Not About Christ
A supposed “proof text” used by Sonship / GS proponents is Luke 24:27 and 24:44: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” And, “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (verse 44).
Supposedly, these verses demonstrate that all of Scripture is about Christ. Let me be clear; if someone wants to say that every verse in the Bible is about what Christ says / commands / teaches / demonstrates, I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s not what GS proponents are saying. They are saying, with an ever-so slight twist and a wink, that all of Scripture is about Christ as a “person.” Instead of focusing on what Christ says, the goal now is to discover who He is personally so you can have an “intimate” relationship with Him. Nobody knows what that means exactly—it just sounds spiritual. Certainly, it sounds more spiritual than living by “a bunch of rules and a list of do’s and don’ts.” Bingo, you have gone from the objective to the subjective; now you can teach anything you want to teach. And trust me, they do. We are not yet trying to ascertain from Scripture what Jesus’ favorite color is, or His favorite food, but give it time—maybe till the next Francis Chan book.
However, to begin with, Christ wasn’t even saying that all Scripture concerns Him. The totality of Scripture available at that time was the Old Testament, and had three divisions: the law, the prophets, writings (which included the Psalms). Most historians think that this is how the OT was divided at that time (actually, the evidence is pretty solid). The order was later changed in the Septuagint (LXX). So in Luke 24:44, why did Jesus only mention the Psalms in the writings part / division? Normally, when Jesus spoke of the OT as a whole, he used the term, “Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17) or just “Law” (Matthew 5:18). A good explanation can be found in “The Infallible Word” written by the Westminster Theological Seminary faculty in 1946 (when their faculty had their right minds).
In the book, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not the Sonship / GS idea that all Scripture is Christocentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word ‘psalms’? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
In the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence” as it is more than fair to say of the GS mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself [Christ]. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
paul
They Just Had To Have Their Own Bible But….
….some things are just better left alone. The GS movement has been busily running about setting up there own spiritual infrastructure for some time now, and apparently, they wanted their own, unique Bible as well. The Bible of choice for the Sonship / GS faithful is the ESV, published in the very contemporary year of 2001. In the advertisement posted at the end of this article—featuring the who’s who of GS doctrine, Francis Chan says: “I’ve loved using the ESV translation because [it’s the GS thing to do] I trust the scholarship [emphasis mine] behind it and the accuracy [emphasis mine] of the interpretation.” Hmmmm: he’s wrong about Jesus being our Beverly Hills 90210 boyfriend—could he be wrong about the ESV as well?
The GS tsunami of the past ten years has fooled some into thinking that the ESV should be “The Bible of the future—ideal for public worship and private reading.” And apparently, not if Mark L. Strauss has anything to do with it. He recently wrote:
“So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the ‘Bible of the future’—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of ‘Biblish.’ Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB;NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of standard English.”
His entire review can be read here: http://bible-translation.110mb.com/improvingesv.pdf , but I will post the snafu’s documented by Strauss that even made me blush, and at times, laugh:
[Begin Strauss excerpt] For example, the ESV (following the RSV) originally rendered Gen. 30:35, “But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped …and put them in charge of his sons.”It is remarkable that Laban had so much confidence in his goats! This gaffe was pointed out and a second printing of the ESV corrected it, taking authority away from Laban’s goats: “… and put them in the charge of his sons.” Here are a few more “oops” translations that I have found in the ESV.
“Grinding Together”?!
Luke 17:35 ESV “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”
Comment: In contemporary English, “grinding together” suggests seductive dancing or something worse. (Perhaps both should have been taken for judgment!) Most versions clarify that this means grinding “grain,” “meal” or “flour” (cf. TNIV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, REB, etc.)
Rock badgers are people too!
Prov. 30:26 ESV “the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;”
Comment: In addition to the tortured word order, the ESV’s use of “people” is very strange. We sometimes joke that animals are people too, but surely ants and rock badgers are “creatures” or “species,” not people.
Nice legs!
Ps. 147:10 ESV “His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man,”
Comment: Taking pleasure in a man’s legs will surely leave readers chuckling. TNIV reads “in the power of human legs”; NET has “by the warrior’s strong legs.”
Such clean teeth!
Amos 4:6 ESV “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities”
Comment: It sounds like God is distributing toothbrushes to the Israelites. The Hebrew idiom means they had nothing to eat. The TNIV reads “I gave you empty stomachs,”; HCSB: “I gave you absolutely nothing to eat.” NET: “I gave you no food to eat.”
Trembling loins?
Psalm 69:23 ESV Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.
Comment: This translation will surely send twitters through the junior high group. Trembling loins sounds like someone has to go to the bathroom.
“Double-tongued” deacons?
1 Tim. 3:8 ESV Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain
Comment: Sounds like a mock “Indian-speak” (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature. The Greek is dilogoi (etymologically, “two words/messages”), which means “insincere,” “lacking integrity,” “hypocritical,” or even “two-faced” (NET; GW).
Keep that faith to yourself!
Rom. 14:22 ESV The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.
Comment: The ESV seems to be discouraging believers from sharing their faith. But the word pistis here refers to personal convictions about food and drink, not about saving faith.6 TNIV So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. REB If you have some firm conviction, keep it between yourself and God.
Showing off the flesh
Gal. 6:12 ESV It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised….
Comment: “A good showing in the flesh” sounds like a bikini contest.
Ruth the mother of Boaz?
Ruth 4:14-15 ESV Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, Who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be Renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.”
Comment: The only antecedent to “him” is Boaz. It sounds like Ruth gave birth to her husband Boaz.
Planting ears?
Psalm 94:9 ESV He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
Comment: “Planting an ear” sounds like an agricultural metaphor. The Hebrew nata in this context means “formed,” or “fashioned.” TNIV Does he who fashioned the ear not hear?…NET Does the one who makes the human ear not hear?
Watch out for falling lots!
Acts 1:26 ESV And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias…
Comment: One hopes Matthias was not hurt when the lot fell on him. The TNIV has “the lot fell to Matthias.” The NET has “the one chosen was Matthias.”
Israel’s gender confusion
Hosea 8:14 ESV For Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces, and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; so I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour her strongholds.
Comment: Readers will probably wonder why he gets the cities and she gets the strongholds.
Comforted or not?
Acts 20:12 ESV And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.
Comment: “Not a little comforted” sounds like they were not comforted in the least by Eutychus’ recovery. The meaning of course is the opposite, that they were greatly comforted. TNIV: …and were greatly comforted.
REB: …greatly relieved that he was alive.
A man without a city
Acts 21:39 ESV Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city.”
Comment: Paul sounds like a man without a city. TNIV is only slightly better (“a citizen of no ordinary city”). NLT captures the sense: “Tarsus in Cilicia, which is an important city.”
Oh man!
Rom. 2:1 ESV Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.
Comment: In contemporary English, “Oh man!” is an exclamation, not a vocative. It sounds like Paul is saying, “Oh man, are you in trouble!” which of course is something like what he means (!), but not what the ESV intended. Even a literal version like the NASB recognizes the potential misunderstanding of the vocative, translating, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment.”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments