How Most Pastors Today Use The Bible
“….if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.”
I’m wondering; can we begin calling our present day, “The Age of the Australian Forum”? If you really want to understand what’s going on in the church theologically, read the Forum’s journal: Present Truth Magazine. It can be obtained online for free through a Progressive Adventist church that archived most of the issues.
The Forum’s hermeneutic was based on their thesis, the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) which is supposedly the lost doctrine of the Reformation. It’s monergism on steroids. We are so wicked and totally depraved, that objective truth can only be outside of us. When truth starts being processed inside of us, the only result can be subjectivism.
What to do then? Answer: focus on central truth that is the “power of the gospel.” Basically, gospel, gospel, and more gospel transforms us into Christ likeness. We need to saturate ourselves with information about the works of Christ, not anything we would do. Hence, pithy truisms like, “Not, ‘What would Jesus do?’ But, ‘What has Jesus done.’”
Supposedly, saturating ourselves with what Jesus has done, not anything that we would do fills our hearts with gratitude and makes us willing and joyful participants in obedience. However, the key is to focus on gospel and then allow works to flow from that. Obedience when we don’t feel like it, or out of duty, is not “done in love” And, the point isn’t how well we do that—because we are not “under law, but under grace.” The point is not to “obey in our own efforts.” Results are not the goal, we can’t affect any results anyway; the goal is to avoid “making our sanctification the basis of our justification.” In other words, all works must flow from justification truth and the “power of the gospel.” Just focus on gospel, and let the “active obedience of Christ” take care of the rest.
This is because Christ was not only obedient to the cross (known as His “passive” obedience), but also lived a perfect life so that His obedience for sanctification could be imputed to us as well (Christ’s “active” obedience). Hence, and don’t miss this, if we try to obey in sanctification, we are trying to accomplish works that have already been finished by Christ as part of the atonement, and thus making our sanctification the grounds of our justification because the two are fused together and part of the atonement with Christ living a perfect life here on Earth for one, and dying for the other. Got that? This makes sanctification very tricky business. At any time, we could be unwittingly “making our sanctification the grounds of our justification.”
Come now, admit it, we hear this lingo all the time reverberating throughout churchianity.
Where does the use of the Bible fit into all of this? Answer: it is a tool for the gospel contemplationism needed to transform us into the likeness of Christ. All of the commands in the Bible are to remind us of the fact that Christ obeyed all of them for us (this is the basis of the New Calvinist motto, “Christ for us”). Biblical imperatives are supposed to remind us of the futility of trying to keep them ourselves while invoking thankfulness for what Jesus has done “for us,” not anything we do. However, polity framework is considered to be a separate issue. They concede that the Bible contains guidelines for structuring the church, but that is for practical function and is separate from “spiritual formation.” Moreover, this view contends that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Bible is used to see the gospel in a deeper and deeper way. And also, aside from practical use for structuring, seeing the Bible through the prism of gospel (ie., Christ the person and His works) interprets the Bible itself for all uses in “spiritual formation.”
Now, since Christ already fulfilled the law and imputed it to us, our goal isn’t to follow specific imperatives in the Bible, but rather to fulfill the “higher law of love” that Christ has instituted to replace the “fulfilled” law which is now abrogated by the “higher law of Christ.” What does that look like?! Answer: it looks like whatever the gospel produces! Because, when it’s the result of the gospel, it can’t be wrong! If the elders of your church are “saturated with the gospel”—they can’t be wrong, and it may, or may not look like “the dead letter of the law,” ie., biblical imperatives not seen in their “gospel context.” As Francis Chan states it: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.”
Look folks, this ministry sees this approach to the Bible fleshing itself out in real-life church situations daily: “But, but, how can they do this?! It is clearly against Scripture!” No, in their minds, it is against a law that has been abrogated by the higher law of Christ. “But, but, what’s that?” Answer: whatever results in the elders being saturated with the gospel, that’s what. And then there is the whole issue of New Calvinist elders poo—pooing church constitutions and by-laws. Trust me, if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.
Let me tell you what the perfect cover is and why so many pastors get away with using the Bible this way. In fact, I will begin to explain with a question: how many great sermons can be preached about the awesomeness of Christ and all that He has done for us? Answer: how many books has John Piper written? And people rave about all of them! But what is missing? Answer: aside from a truckload, Matthew 7:24-27. One of the best friendships I have was brought about when she objected to an article I wrote along these lines, and mentioned a book by John Piper that was supposedly “full of biblical instruction.” I then responded and encouraged her to reread the book and list every biblical life application she could find. She did just that and contacted me by email: “Your right. This is a real eye opener.”
What prompted this post? I read this article here: article link. Read it for yourself and let me know if it rings any bells.
paul
Do Christians Really Have a Clue? I’m Just Asking!
Notice: it is not, I repeat, NOT the goal of this post to criticize the following brother for what he posted on Facebook. I’m just posing a question. Is that ok?
Nevertheless, here is the post:
“At the beginning of last year, I set up 30 chairs in our youth room and started praying that God would bring in the young people that were supposed to be a part of Dunamis Youth. I told our 10 faithful youth to start praying for God to fill the seats. Tonight, at 7:10, a young man, who came late because of basketball practice came in and sat down in the last empty seat!! Praise God, I’m gonna go set up more seats!”
Per the usual, because it sounds good (the modern-day Good Churchkeeping seal of approval), the following comments ensued preceded by revealed forethought demonstrated by their length:
huge PRAISE! great job!
God is good
Awesome! I hope you have so many you have to build a new building! Keep doing what your doing man.
WTG Matt!!
Woohoo!!!
That gave me chills!!!! That is awesome!!!!
Praise God!
I think us “dancers” may have to find more room and a new spot to stand at(: haha
WONDERFUL!!!
That is wonderful!!!
That is just AWESOME Matt!! GOD IS GREAT!!
Good thing Matt! More empty seats & more prayers! God is good!
Matt!! Here is YOUR Word for the day!! (Maybe, really, for the rest f your life!) 1 Cor. 1:6!!!
thats wonderful MAtt! when do you meet?
The jury of fourteen is in with their judgment (sorry about slipping with the no-no word) verdict: “God did it.” Oh really? How do we know that? Why exactly would God send them? Is it God who fills the 25,000 seat auditorium at Joel Osteen’s church? Some say “yes,” others would say “no.” How do we know? Do we know positively that God filled those chairs? And if He didn’t, is it alright to make such assumptions because they’re feel-good assumptions? Does positive + feel-good = truth?
Ok, let’s assume God sent them. Why would he? I didn’t ask the brother why he thought God would; he may have a very good reason, but the first part of this story is far too indicative of our church culture:
Q: Why would God send them?
A: Like, because of the gospel dude.
Q: What’s the gospel?
A: Like, you know, what Jesus did for us man.
Q: So, is that all you are going to teach?
A: Duuuuude, of course not!
Q: So what are you going to teach?
A: Dude, I have it all planned out. We are going to start by teaching through “Crazy
Love” written by the Chanster.
Q: Then what?
A: Dunno dude, depends on the next biggest gig to come out man.
All too often, church strategy can be summed up by one goal: get more people here to talk about Jesus. And that usually entails talking about what other people say about Jesus, not anything derived from deep study by local church leaders.
In fact, “strategy” sounds really unspiritual, no? That could be why most local churches really don’t have a clue as to why they are here and what they are doing. But it’s not complicated. Christ’s mandate to the church is not, “get people saved.” His mandate to the church is “make disciples.” Christ doesn’t want a bunch of saved people—He wants disciples. Christ is savior. True. He is also Lord. Equally true. And the goal is to have disciples whose lives are “built on a rock” by “[hearing] these words of mine and [putting] them into practice.” That’s a biblical goal: teaching disciples how to put the full counsel of God into practice so we have lives built on a rock. Lives that also preach the gospel. Biblical thinking, biblical praying, and biblical doing. All of God’s counsel, and ALL of God’s people. Every moment of church life should be working towards doing that as much as possible. And I contend that it takes planning, good communication, and knowing why we are here and what we are doing.
Fill chairs. Sure. But why?
paul
Matthew 25:14-29: More is at Stake Than Semantics Concerning Sanctification
Jay Adams wrote the following helpful words in a recent post:
“There are two ways to serve the Lord, only one of which actually renders service that He approves. One way is to have an intellectually correct view of what God requires and then to make an attempt to fulfill the requirements. The other way is to gain an equally correct view of what God requires and then tell Him that you cannot fulfill the requirements. The latter view is the proper one.
But, of course, it is not enough to tell the Lord that you can’t do what He requires. That, admission must be followed immediately by your acknowledgment that He can, and is willing to, enable you to do so by His Spirit, which in turn must be followed by your request for such help.
God blesses the humble, who acknowledge their own insufficiency. But He never takes that as an excuse for failing to meet His requirements. He has provided all we need for life and godliness, so no excuse is valid. On the other hand, we will not be given that for which we do not humbly ask.
So, a proper balancing of biblical truth is necessary: we cannot/we can—on our own/with His help. So, believer, in serving God, we serve well when we serve Him in our insufficiency fully aided by His sufficiency. Even Jesus, the all-sufficient One ministered under the power of the Holy Spirit. True godly service is that which involves both the human and the divine.”
True, and very helpful words for understanding. I would only add that our “human” involvement does include effort, or as JC Ryle states it: “exertion.” And why not? Unlike worldly endeavors, our efforts are guaranteed to yield positive results when we depend on Him and follow His ways of doing things. It is storing up treasures in heaven rather than where thieves steal and moths corrupt. “’I’ can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Phil 4:13). What a wonderful verse! It is a staple verse in my relationship with Susan. We don’t even waste time saying, “Well, I’ll try,” when one of us confronts the other about changes we need to make in our lives, knowing that the Phil 4:13 reminder will be immediately implemented. Also, when we don’t “feel” like we have the will to do God’s bidding, that’s false as well according to Phil 2:13. God will always grant the will. As Dr. Adams states above, no excuses.
In Matthew 25:14-29, Christ speaks of a servant who offered an excuse rather than service. Christ calls the servant “lazy,” which is the antithesis of work. The servant did not work in his spiritual life. God enables according to the gifts given; this is another truth that can be born-out here, but obviously, work on our part is still required. And we would do well to strongly consider the end result: “And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Though Jay’s post deals with sanctification and this passage of Scripture deals with justification as can be ascertained by the last statement cited by Christ, the post offers helpful insights to hang our thoughts on. Jay speaks of trying to do things right without depending on Christ, and knowing what is right, and not doing it. Both will lead to God’s “[dis]approval” or loss of reward. But what of the belief that we can’t work in the sanctification process, with or without God’s enablement? Now, I’m not going to speculate on an articulation of the servants thinking, but nonetheless, we can conclude that it was derived from an inaccurate assessment of God’s law, ie., what the Lord expects, and the false assessment resulted in him not working for the lord, ie., spiritual laziness. Working off of Jay’s helpful prism, this is wrong information (or, in essence, a misinterpretation of the law) leading to wrong behavior and self-deception, not the use of right information implemented in the wrong way, ie., a self-dependent / non-humble attitude.
So, when presenting the gospel, is it a true presentation if the Lord’s expectations are not accurately presented? What if we are told that we are not saved by the law (true), that we can’t keep the law (true), and that the law has no role in our relationship to God because it has been abrogated by whatever “feels like love” (not true: Francis Chan,“Crazy Love”p. 110). What if the presentation says that the gospel is strictly a “proclamation” and not something to be “followed” (not true: Michael Horton, “Modern Reformation” Nov. / Dec. Vol.15 No.6 2006 pages 6-9) even though Christ said “follow me,” and what He was referring to was “teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded”?
Again, I am not going to make any judgments regarding what the exact thinking of the servant was, but there is another safe conclusion that can be drawn: the servant was playing it safe. In his mind, he was erring on the side of safety (“I was afraid and went out and hid your gold in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you”), but to his horrible detriment. In our day, has the law of God been so misrepresented that we think to avoid it is to error on the side of safety? I think so. The belief that Jesus obeys for us—is that playing it safe because we can supposedly give Him all of the glory? Is the belief that all of the imperatives in the Bible are “indicative” of what Christ has done and not anything required of us indicative of that belief? Absolutely.
Lack of dependance on God can lead to non-humbleness in two different ways: lack of dependance in works, but also lack of dependance on God in understanding—leading to spiritual laziness. The slothful servant made the fatal error of leaning on his own understanding:
“His master replied, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.”
The servant misunderstood the Lord’s expectations, and didn’t even understand the best course of action based on the wrong information, that is another safe assumption. Is a gospel presentation void of repentance, and the standard of repentance, a valid gospel presentation? I doubt it. Telling people that any effort on our part to represent the gospel with our behavior is trying to “be the gospel” rather than presenting the gospel (Michael Horton, “Christless Christianity” pages 117-119) regardless of what 1Peter 2:12 and 3:1,2 clearly states—is that instruction that does not lean on biblical understanding and leads to spiritual laziness? Definitely.
Gospel sanctification must be contended against because it is clearly a false gospel; more is at stake than semantics concerning sanctification.
paul
Teenage Rebellion and Paul Tripp’s Broken-Down House
As some know, this blog has turned into, primarily, an apology against Gospel Sanctification which is the spawn of Sonship Theology. To hear many tell it, we are in days that hearken back to the reign of Josiah when the lost book of the Covenant was found in the temple. Though we haven’t lost the Bible per se, they claim the true gospel has been lost in the temple of our minds via Pharisaic teaching that we are supposed to exert our own effort in the spiritual growth process. Yes, the great sin of our day is “serving God in our own efforts,” not serving God in our own way. In fact, our own way is ok, “as long as our motive is love.” As Francis Chan says: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.” Don’t you know, Christ came to fulfill the law for us and active obedience is imputed to us like justification. As John Piper says, biblical commands should be seen as works that Christ has done for us, and thereby instilling thankfulness in our hearts with joy and praise following (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
I have never read “Age of Opportunity” by Paul David Tripp. He is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification (GS) and I have always assumed it was a GS application on teenage parenting. But lately, events in my life have driven home how scary that is. I presently have the opportunity to counsel a rebellious teenager. We will call him “Freddy,” and we will call his dad “Ken.” Look, I am just a lowly pilgrim trying to make my way in God’s kingdom like everyone else, and will tell you that I am no expert on teenage rebellion. So here I am, prayerfully trying to work my way through all of this. Why would I get involved? Simple: “If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him” ( James 1:5). Other reasons will be stated later in this post.
I don’t like the hefty problems of life like severe “mental illness” and such. Why? Because it casts doubt on hope, and our God is the God of great hope. There is always hope when my great God is on the throne. In the Old Testament we have a picture of life’s problems in the person of Goliath. There he was; huge, ugly, very frightening, and mocking God. That made David angry. In the same way, the huge problems in our life seem to be mocking God by softly whispering in our ears, “hopeless, hopeless, hopeless.” Situations with rebellious teens can seem hopeless because they (teens) are formidable warriors. They will even fight to the death. As a means of revenge against parents, they will often commit suicide, knowing that the fallout will more than likely destroy their parent’s marriage, and leave the household devastated / guilt ridden. How do I know this? That’s what teenagers who have been interviewed say:
“Most teens who attempt suicide report a rich fantasy around the event, a fantasy that includes being noticed after death by those who have ignored them, causing regret among those they feel have wronged them and teaching a lesson to those who have harmed them. When teens think of suicide they often feel that they will be able to watch what happens after their death. This fantasy is an example of how weak a grasp suicidal teens have on the reality of the situation. Far too many suicidal teens do not ever stop to consider the finality of the act of suicide. Because suicidal thoughts are often part of a recognition/revenge fantasy it is all too easy for the immature teen psyche to play down the severity of suicide” (http://teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/aa120502c.htm).
Besides this, many parents fear their rebellious teenagers to the point of removing all weapons from the house and installing deadbolts on their bedroom doors to prevent ambushes in the middle of the night. Teenage rebellion subjects a household to constant darkness and turmoil. Often, there is only peace in the home when the rebellious teen is appeased.
Let me share what I have learned so far. I am strongly drawn to Ephesians 6:1-4 in all of this because it seems to be a rare and definitive statement in the Bible on child rearing:
“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 ‘Honor your father and mother’ (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 ‘that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.’ 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
An incident between Freddy and Ken brings verse 4A to life. Ken became frustrated with Freddy, and the reasons were far from trite (among many, serious disrespect towards the mother / wife by Freddy), but Ken’s intentions were to deliberately provoke Freddy to anger and even threatened him physically.
Ken was angry about the situation but Freddy’s attitude was flippant and he displayed no shame for the things he had done, so Ken provoked him. A father is the pastor of the home. Could you imagine going to church and seeing your pastor provoking a parishioner in the hallway? You would be horrified, as Ken was afterward in regard to his own behavior, and many tears were shed over this lapse. What should Ken have done instead? “Bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.”
I am totally amazed by this verse of Scripture. You can hear all of the “yes, but what about___?” But it seems like this verse keeps answering back: “two things; discipline and instruction.” Let me further explain. In working on this counseling situation, I did some research on military schools. But then I began to think: “Most of these schools are Christian schools, and the parents are dropping their teenager off because, ‘we can’t handle him / her anymore.’ Then, you read all of the wonderful testimonies about how parents get there children back fixed and remodeled. But the Christian boarding schools have the same Bible that the parents have!” Something just didn’t smell right, so I dug deeper. Apparently, the “secret” to the success of these boarding schools is the belief that teens thrive and find happiness in a structured, balanced environment. But that’s “discipline!” There just doing what Ephesians 6:4 says to do!
Of course, there are a lot of biblical principles that fall under discipline and instruction, but the child’s role and the parent’s role are plainly stated. A biblical counselor once told me that all of his counseling with teens is based on verses 1-3. He also told me that according to his experience, 90% of teen problems are related to their relationship with parents. It’s simple, honoring parents is the gateway to blessings, as these verses plainly state. According to him, all teen counseling must focus on honoring the parents, and the rest will usually fall into place. However, it seems to me that any counseling in regard to this subject must include the parents and the teenager so both understand how this works together. This point brings me to the second reason I am taking on this task; most teen counseling involves meetings with the teenager alone. This is ill-advised because even if the rebellious teen tells the whole truth, they are not usually mature enough to assess the issues of life; it is impossible to effectively counsel someone without a truthful and accurate assessment of their life.
Back to Ken and Freddy. I clearly see what Ken did in 4A, and I also see what Ken isn’t doing in 4B. This is so huge in this situation that you can’t miss it. Freddy has no structure in his life other than school. He is not required to do any chores. He gets home from school and just does whatever he feels like doing. Other than school and some sports, his whole life is texting, gaming, watching TV, surfing the web, listening to heavy metal music, etc. He leaves messes everywhere he goes in the house and refuses to pickup after himself. His room is always a mess, and he contributes nothing to the household. Can one call this the “discipline of the Lord?” I’m thinking, “no.” If this is absent via Ken’s failure, could it be connected to the rebellion? I’m thinking, “yes.” Are rebellious teens, well, undisciplined ? Now, Ken does the “instruction” part well (4C). Freddy gets a steady flow of solid theology, but in the home, there is no application thereof. Hence, Christ’s dynamic of practical application that concludes the sermon on the mount in Matthew 7 is not in place; there is instruction, but no discipline:
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Ken must lead his family differently; Freddy’s house is broken-down.
Since Freddy does whatever he wants at home, it would stand to reason that he would also begin to do whatever he wants in regard to school, and that’s what happened the other day. He announced to Ken that he wasn’t going to school because he didn’t feel like it. This has happened before, but this time, a course of action had already been established. Ken calmly asked Freddy to get ready for school several times. Upon continual refusal, Ken advised Freddy that the police would be called, but to no avail, so they were summoned. At this point, Freddy feigned a nervous breakdown which was an impressive display complete with convulsions. This was also anticipated, and Ken informed Freddy that he wasn’t buying the act. When the police arrived, Freddy was told that if he didn’t go to school he would be taken to a juvenile detention center. Freddy went to school.
The next morning, a peculiar thing happened. When Freddy was awakened for school, he immediately got up and dressed. For the first time in ten days, he ate breakfast. Actually, he devoured it like he was starved. Not only that, his demeanor was cheerful. Ken called a family meeting that night and presented a family contract based on Ephesians 6:1-4. Ken confessed his sin to Freddy concerning his failure to lead the home in the discipline of the Lord. He explained that “discipline” doesn’t just mean rules and punishment, it also includes entertainment ( as Tony Evans says: “We are free to play football because of its rules) and structure; in essence, balance. He explained the awesome concept of self-discipline not making the negative aspect of the Lord’s discipline necessary ( 1Corinthians 11: 30-32) as well as many other dynamics and elements of skillfully applying God’s word to life and the blessings that result (James 1:25). Ken also presented some instruction on how our conscience works with faith. In fact, Ken pointed out how happy Freddy was that morning, even after being forced to do the right thing! Freddy sheepishly agreed.
Oh yes, I can now hear the cat-cries from the peanut gallery. Ken is just making Freddy into a Pharisee. Ken is just teaching Freddy to clean the outside of the cup, etc., etc., add nausea. Only one problem. Ken attends a church where “the gospel” is heavily emphasized as an instrument of change. One of the favorite teachers propagated by the church is Francis Chan, who teaches that people will have a pure, deep desire to follow Christ if you simply show how great He is. Hence, all obedience will flow from being wowed by Christ, and thankfulness for His incomprehensible sacrifice. And if we sin when we don’t have that desire, oh well, we’re not saved by works anyway. In fact, it’s good when we sin because it “makes us more dependent on Christ.” Making an effort to obey supposedly produces “self-righteousness” or as Paul Tripp states it: “Christless activism.” At any rate, my apologies to the peanut gallery, a gospel-centered approach isn’t working here.
And this is probably the reason why: the disciples were with Christ face to face for three years. Did Christ continually wow them? I think you know the answer to that. When Christ confronted Peter in His resurrected body, do you really think he told Peter to display his love for Him through obedience so he would fail and be more dependent on Him? I think you know the answer to that as well. Christ spent forty days teaching the disciples before he ascended. What did He teach them and what did they come away with? Answer: “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.” And, “Then they gathered around him and asked him, ‘Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?’” Throughout the Scriptures, as here, the opportunity to correct the disciples on the supposed crux of discipleship is passed over. There are just too many times, in fact, hundreds, where some other word should be replaced with “gospel.” Such as:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and [continually showing forth the gospel] teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”(Matthew 28).
I have a question. Teaching the wisdom of God and demonstrating how it brings peace to ones life whether they are saved or not isn’t the gospel? If God’s wisdom can’t produce a peaceful household, how can it save a soul? God’s wisdom clearly demonstrates the way of life and the way of death, and Moses pleaded with the children of Israel to “Choose life.” Clearly, the apostle Peter emphasized this fact in his first letter (3:1, 15,16).
This now brings me to Tripp’s book which doesn’t mention Ephesians 6:1-4 at all. This is most striking; a book on rearing children, whether teenagers or otherwise, that doesn’t mention this passage. Why would that be? First, the passage turns Tripp’s theology completely upside down by offering reward / incentive for doing what is right. This blows away the whole concept of all change being at “the heart level.” It is an outward enticement to encourage the heart to do what is right. Also, the apostle Paul emphasizes the point by quoting Moses. Ouch! This indicates that this principle has been in place since the beginning.
Secondly, GS depends heavily on the idea that the New Covenant replaced the Old Covenant completely by ushering in a modified Law or new Law. But Ephesians 2:12 makes being unregenerate synonymous with being alienated from the “covenants” (plural) of promise.” Then Paul connects this thought by making OT law applicable to sanctification. Therefore, the NC didn’t replace the old, but rather the NC, though better and different, has important OC elements built into it that are essential to spiritual growth. This is devastating to GS theology.
On page 76, Tripp writes that the Bible doesn’t convey wisdom in regard to raising teenagers, which is blatantly false as it is obvious that the word “children” in Ephesians 6:1 would include any unemancipated children or youth within the home. Therefore, Ephesians 6:1-3 applies directly to teens with priceless wisdom needed to rear them. In fact, efficacious, but nowhere to be found in “Age of Opportunity,” at least not by me after reading through the book twice.
Also, throughout the book, Tripp redefines “heart” to be something else other than what the Bible says it is. For the most part, in the Scriptures, “heart” is the mind, and the Bible defines it as the primary turf of our warfare with sin. I go into this in some detail here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/02/10/doctrine/
Tripp doesn’t like that because if the mind is the primary turf of our warfare, objective application that could be construed as work, or efforts by us are made possible. Tripp believes that any effort by us to replace unbiblical thinking with biblical thinking is a denial of the gospel (How People Change, p.27).
Instead, Tripp presents the heart as a nebulous territory with various idols running about trying to hide from x-ray questions. Nebulous theology makes his theory of change possible.
Unless I missed this also, another biblical concept missing in AOO is corporal punishment. “Spare the rod, hate the child.” I am close friends with a couple who was counseled by a disciple of Paul Tripp. They informed me that whenever the subject was brought up in regard to their young children (not teenagers), the counselor became evasive. They also complained that there was a heavy emphasis on parental responsibility while insinuating that the actions of the children were only relevant from the perspective of the gospel (this is also heavily indicative of AOO). They eventually discontinued the counseling. Again, the idea that an outward application could facilitate inside change is an affront to Tripp’s theology. Neither is Tripp phased by the brazen contradictions to Scripture that follow. Because of what the Scriptures say about the importance of corporal punishment, its relationship to rearing teens is vitally important, especially in regard to thirteen-year-old’s who haven’t been reared in a Christian home.
Furthermore, AOO doesn’t address the fact that raising teens can be a life and death warfare. The book seems more suited for suburban Christianity than real life. I have to believe that parents dwelling in the turmoil and darkness of this warfare would find the book trite.
Paul Tripp proffers a child rearing that is gospel instruction only, and excludes “the discipline of the Lord.” Throughout the book, he chides discipline and promotes a “speaking to the heart.” Therefore, it is a hearing of the gospel, but a treatise against putting what is heard “into practice.” Therefore, his followers will not find the blessings of James 1:25, and their houses will be like the ones built upon the sand; broken – down.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
12 comments