TGC Part 18: Michael Horton Drama, “The Wordless Gospel”
In this clip, Horton explains his belief that the law and gospel are separate. Only problem is, the law isn’t just the Ten Commandments, it’s all of Scripture (Psalms 1:1-6 Matthew 4:4 among hundreds that could be cited). Therefore, the law informs us as to what the gospel is, so how can you separate them? Horton, in this clip, explains that the law can give us guidelines for purposes of which we will always fail to accomplish, but the gospel is a “promise” from God that will always be accomplished because it is of God. So the law doesn’t contain any promises? That’s just crazy, and obviously untrue. In usual GS doublespeak, Horton says we need “purposes” (ie., the law), but they can’t “drive” us. In other words, we need purposes, but they don’t do us any good. Huh?
TGC Part 17: Michael Horton Drama, “The Dance”
In this clip, Horton dances around what he really believes about the relationship between justification and sanctification. He makes reference to those pesky evangelicals who “collapse justification into sanctification.” Huh? Dr. Horton, please just tell the truth and say that you believe they are both the same. And by the way, nobody can dance with theological terms like you can.
TGC Part 16: Michael Horton Drama, “Evangelical Heretics”
In this clip, Horton clearly says that Christians should merely “sit down and receive” [only]. He also employs the usual GS technique for devaluing biblical imperatives by referring to them as do’s and dont’s, living by lists, etc. You can refer to the every word that comes from the mouth of God that we live by (Matthew 4:4) in that way; it’s just not advisable to do so. Horton also uses the GS tactic of comparing orthodox evangelicals to Joel Osteen and pop-psychology. And Dr. Horton, by the way: the only fog creeping through Christianity is your Sonship theology.
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 15: How Does GS / Sonship Work?
Once you bring people to the point where they can wrap their brain around GS, inevitably, this question follows with an incredulous expression on their faces: “How does this supposedly work in real life?” I have developed a visible chart following this post that will hopefully aid in understanding
Remember, GS / Sonship is sanctification by salvation / justification, so, like salvation, you can only implement belief and repentance to effect sanctification. Therefore, under “Gospel Narrative,” you have the “Belief” and “Repentance” circles. If sanctification is by salvation, then the Bible only addresses justification. Hence, at the top of the chart we have the “Gospel Narrative” circle. The Bible, or gospel narrative, helps us with all of the other circles. In fact, in their view, the Bible could actually be organized according to these circles. Paul Tripp has a similar chart in “How People Change.” It’s just a different way to explain the same thing, except I go beyond his primary “change” thesis and implement some of the theology as well. In chapter 6, Tripp explains this GS “big picture” hermeneutic. He specifically states in chapter six that the whole Bible can be organized according to his chart, and more than once cautions his readers that the information is not “a set of directions, but an aerial view of daily life….” Many GS counselors now use such visual tools to avoid instructing counselees with “do’s and dont’s” and “lists.” The goal is to show the counselee where they are in the gospel narrative, and thereby illuminating the gospel to a brighter level in the mind of the counselee. Tripp claims that his model (a redemptive-historical model) is derived from the book of Jeremiah; but of course, that’s ridiculous.
We will examine the belief leg first and then move to the repentance leg in explaining how these two effect change. Supposedly. Reading the gospel narrative with, as John Piper says, “an eye toward the cross,” we begin to “treasure” (see Treasure circle) Christ and the gospel more and more which contributes to the endgame (the New Obedience circle). Note the Law Positive circle: all of the commands in the Bible are to be seen as what Christ fulfilled for us—a bunch of laws that we could never keep anyway; so instead of seeing them as laws to be obeyed, or instruction, we are to see them as a way to cultivate thankfulness for the works of Christ, “not anything we do.” Therefore, one of the pillars of faith concerning the gospel narrative is its documentation of all of the laws that Christ obeyed for us.
Repentance is the major component of GS. Almost everything is geared towards removing idols from the heart (anything we love more than Christ). As we remove idols from our heart through confession, the void is filled by Christ which results in New Obedience (HPC p.28). Therefore, all of life is geared toward a warfare with idols of the heart. All circumstances are seen as an opportunity to reveal heart idols through our responses (see Response to Circumstances circle). In “How people Change,” it’s the “Heat” circle on Tripp’s chart. Idols of the heart produce evil desires, i.e., anything we love more than Christ; so, an examination of the desires can reveal what the idol is that is causing the sin. This is done through asking ourselves questions that help determine what we loved / wanted / desired more than Christ (see Interpretive Questions circle). David Powlison and Paul Tripp refer to these as “X-ray questions” (HPC p. 163).
“Law Negative” has to do with using Scripture as law, and not gospel / Spirit. The Bible is used for the purpose of (as Michael Horton states it speaking of biblical imperatives): “….drive[ing] us to despair of self righteousness.” GS counselors will often do this, especially during redemptive church discipline. Supposedly, it reveals the folly of trying to obey the law / Scriptural imperatives. Paul Tripp calls such an effort on the part of the believer, “Christless activism.” So it also serves in revealing idols of self righteousness as well. The goal of Law Negative is to bring the counselee to the point where, as Bill Baldwin conveys it—the counselee says, “’I cannot keep it! Someone must do it for me!’”
Once idols are identified and the desires that they produce (by the way, Scripture says sinful desires come from the flesh, not the heart), they can be repented of and replaced with a contrary desire produced by the gospel narrative. This whole process is called “deep repentance,” and replacing the sinful desire with a desire spawned by the gospel narrative is called the “reorientation of desires / heart.” By contemplating the gospel and partaking in deep repentance, we are strengthened to make two primary facilitators of change possible: new desires, and in some veins of GS, “yielding.” Many in the GS movement, like John Piper, believe that we are completely driven by desire. So, by changing the desires—you change the behavior. Of course, this is eerily similar to Freudian Depth Psychology. Others believe that the flesh and the Spirit are figurative realms, and at any moment we yield to one or the other. They also make a distinction between the Spirit and the law—the law brings death like the flesh realm, and the Spirit brings life. Of course, this is eerily similar to Gnosticism.
This all results in the filling of Christ, which results in “New Obedience,” which is always earmarked by experiencing obedience as a “mere natural flow” accompanied by joy.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 14: GS / Sonship’s Double Imputation as the Only True Gospel
There seems to be discussion in the GS camp concerning the importance of “double imputation” verses “passive imputation” and its relevance to the gospel. The debate is articulated well by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker here: http://goo.gl/UxyaX .
I decided to post on this because I think it is an important element of their doctrine to be understood, and you will see why further along, but let’s lay some groundwork first. Here is Lehrer’s definitions of the terms that the debate is comprised of:
Active (or Preceptive) Obedience: The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the Mosaic Law.
Passive (or Penal) obedience: Christ’s sacrificial death by which He paid the penalty for the sins of the elect.
Imputation: Getting something that you did not earn. Imputation, rather abstractly, describes how all that Jesus accomplished for us gets to us. So, one might say that imputation communicates that all that Jesus did on the cross is placed or wired into your “spiritual bank account” when you believe.
Righteousness: Acceptance with God. Righteousness, in the context of salvation, is whatever it is that God requires in order to be accepted by Him.
Lehrer then explains the crux of the argument:
“Before we can begin to discuss the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, we must consider Christ’s passive obedience. The great reformed theologian Louis Berkhof believes that the passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to the believer has limitations as to what it does for the believer:
‘…if He (Christ) had merely paid the penalty (for the believer), without meeting the original demands of the law (for the believer), He would have left man in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life in the way of obedience. By His active obedience, however, He carried His people beyond that point and gave them a claim to everlasting life.’
If only the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, according to Berkhof, this would not give him eternal life. He would have to obey God perfectly and earn eternal life on His own. The man who only has the passive obedience of Christ imputed to him would be in a spiritual Switzerland— stuck in neutral. Is the distinguished Louis Berkhof right? We don’t think so.”
And I’m not taking sides because I have a lot more to learn about Covenant Theology, which Lehrer thinks is ground zero for this debate. Neither I’m I prepared to accept his explanation of Covenant Theology as stated in this article. As Lehrer says, he believes the so-called passive obedience of Christ imputed to the believer is all that is necessary. However, I do think “passive” is a strange term indeed for Christ’s obedience to the cross because it was far from being a passive affair. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter seems to be whether or not Christ had to fulfill the original covenant broken by Adam (the Covenant of Works in Covenant Theology) via living a perfect life while here in the flesh, and in addition to paying the penalty for sin as well. Hence, double imputation. Lehrer says no, and you can read his lengthy argument via the link cited.
Apparently, the GS / Sonship movement is split concerning this issue, and he mentions Wayne Grudem as one who seems to hold to the double imputation view. But something is conspicuously missing here for I would imagine neither side is saying that one must believe in double imputation in order to profess a true gospel. Or are they? What’s conspicuously missing in Lehrer’s discussion is the practical implication for sanctification. If Christ died to pay the penalty of sin (the imputation of His so-called passive obedience), and lived to fulfill the covenant (the imputation of His active obedience) that God made with Adam, does that mean fulfilled works / obedience are also imputed to us, and thereby relinquishing our need / responsibility to perform?
Furthermore, if we believe we must work / obey in sanctification, could that be seen as an attempt to replace the works of Christ already imputed to us? Yes. In fact, when many proponents of GS refer to “the imputed active obedience of Christ,” this is exactly what they are talking about. Supposedly, righteousness, the fulfillment of the Works Covenant (if they are GS Covenant Theology types), and not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but Christ’s substitution for our works as well would be imputed to us—eliminating any responsibility on our part to perform works. Before I became privy to this argument, I couldn’t see how Covenant Theology could be consistent with GS/ Sonship, but now I see the possibility and stand corrected accordingly.
But, in fact, does Lehrer avoid any discussion of how this debate effects our role in sanctification because the synthesis of justification and sanctification is assumed in these circles? I Don’t know, but the belief that double imputation fleshes itself out in sanctification, and is efficacious for the presentation of a true gospel is defiantly a reality in the movement. It is sometimes referred to as monergistic substitutionary sanctification, ie., Christ’s death (passive obedience) was not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but his life fulfilled the Works Covenant and is also a substitution for any works that would be required by us in sanctification / regeneration, even for different purposes than earning salvation (which should be assumed since justification is a onetime act / declaration by God). There are probably some in the movement that think synergism in sanctification is unfortunate error, but most of the more prominent leaders in the movement such as Michael Horton believe it is a false gospel that results in the loss of justification (Christless Christianity p. 62).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments