Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
The Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Information Network
Again, thanks to those sending information to this ministry. The stories are the same; faithful Bereans searching the Scriptures themselves, sometimes for two years or longer, because their leaders would not be forthcoming concerning what they were spoon-feeding their congregations. This is the arrogance of GS leaders, withholding the whole truth until their (supposedly) spiritually inferior congregants are “ready” for the whole “truth.” Hence, they know themselves that the doctrine would be rejected out-of-hand if not gradually assimilated into what they are feeding parishioners. This is an across-the-board GS mode of operation that creates heavy-handed leadership and a cult-like atmosphere in many churches.
Some are sending information about the attitude of our spiritual kin concerning law and gospel. I am deeply indebted to one individual for introducing me to the writings of Walter Chantry. The book that was recommended to me should be arriving tomorrow. Apparently, Chantry’s implications in the book concerning NCT didn’t sit well with Reisinger and Zen—a very good sign. And Trust me (after reading Chantry’s “Today’s Gospel”), Chantry’s view of law and gospel doesn’t agree with Michael Horton either.
Also, a huge problem for the GS crowd is the novelty factor. Evangelicals have a hard time swallowing the idea that the church has been in the dark until 1980. Their (GS profs) disingenuous response is to claim Walter Marshall, Luther, and John Owen held to their views on sanctification. One reader is going to share some research possibly indicating that Walter Marshall’s writings were altered in a book about his supposed views on sanctification. Readers are also referring me to several people who were at ground level of the Sonship movement and were apposed to it, and I am hoping to personally interview those people in preparation for my chapter book on GS, which will articulate the history of the movement.
Almost everyone is saying, “You probably already know this but….” No! I haven’t been privy to any of it, keep it coming! The information is also great blog material, but I will not mention any sources by name unless it is a source that is already public. But, because I am a layman, and scratching out time for research is difficult, the information is invaluable. I am hoping for Feedback on the limited edition essay book to aid in the writing of the chapter book as well.
As you can see, the information coming in contends against bits and pieces of the movement. The goal of this network is to reveal the connection between all of these bits and pieces. You can also see the perplexity of some that certain respected individuals are doing this, that, or the other (inviting certain individuals to their conferences etc.). I find the perplexity concerning John Piper, especially Steve Camps piece, adorable. However, though there are many complicated pieces, the primary foundation is Sonship Theology which was not widely accepted by evangelicals until proponents changed to the “gospel” nomenclature. Therefore, the goal is also to identify the doctrine with the identity from which it came as a way to remove its cover.
In all, lest we forget: this is all driven by the conviction that doctrine determines what a life looks like, and unbiblical prescriptions for living the kingdom life must be contended against. That is love for others.
paul
Go Easy on Jenn—She’s Just a Good New Covenant Theology Girl
Recently, friends of this ministry have been sending me some good information and links as Christians are beginning to realize that something doesn’t smell right in reformed evangelical circles. This week, I will be referencing / compiling this information in the right-hand column of this blog. For instance, another blog has recently added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive. This information also makes it much easier for me to blog, being a layman and having other concerns.
In one link sent to me concerning John Piper’s disturbing connections to Rick Warren and others
( http://apprising.org/2010/04/26/is-this-doctrinal-and-sound-dr-john-piper/ ), the professing Christian / lesbian / musician Jennifer Knapp is mentioned as an example of Rick Warren’s “just be who you are” idea:
“’Rick Warren, in his talk at TED2006, stated (at approx. 21:00 in the video) that ‘God Smiles when You Be You’. He states a few seconds later that God gets pleasure out of ‘you being you.’ Friends, there’s a big problem with this message. Rick was speaking to an audience that was primarily non-Christians. Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Instead a humanistic message that ‘God loves us for being us’ was given. This message is not the Gospel, obviously, but the worst part, is that as a Christian pastor, Rick Warren basically just opened the floodgates for any behavior at all. Believers and non-believers alike can now simply do whatever they want, and think (based upon Rick) that God will smile upon them, and receive pleasure from people being whoever they desire to be.
After properly refuting that man-centered fantasy biblically Willman says:
‘Now let’s take Rick’s message and apply it to Jennifer Knapp, the ‘Christian’ who is now publicly stating that she’s a lesbian. She appeared on Larry King Live just the other day, and made this statement:
Larry King: You say you’re the happiest you’ve ever been right now?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m pretty darn happy.
Larry King: So you’re glad all of this happened?
Jennifer Knapp: I am not a regretful person.
Larry King: No, but you feel better?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m… I… I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician and part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest and to not feel like I have to lie or hide anything. I don’t necessarily want to talk about it all the time, but I don’t have to hide it either.
So based on what Rick Warren states, that God takes pleasure in ‘you being you’, Jennifer is currently being smiled upon by God, and He is taking pleasure in the fact that she is a lesbian.’”
As I attempt to use this blog to network information about gospel sanctification, I will continue to remind folks that the current neo-Calvinism movement is primarily made-up of New Covenant Theology and the idea that the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. What many of these bloggers do not yet understand is John Piper’s theological contribution to neo-Calvinism; namely, Christian hedonism. In other words, and as they already, I’m sure, strongly suspect is that these guys plp together for a reason. New Covenant Theology includes the idea that Christ came to fulfill the law (and thereby eliminating its need) and replaced it with a single law of love. What “love” is—is at the discretion of a believers conscience. I have seen elders operate by this approach firsthand. This theology drives Knapp’s life. Here are my comments on this in another post:
“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.”
Bottom line: most evangelicals see New Covenant Theology as a trivial disagreement regarding semantics. That’s hardly the case. Knapp’s lesbianism is just a symptom—the root cause is what needs to be destroyed: New Covenant Theology.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments