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
The Christmas Gift: Wear it Well
Here we are at that time of the year, once again, when we “celebrate” the birth of Christ. We do so (even though Christ has only commanded us to remember his future return, not His birth), by exchanging gifts on a day of which the date is not documented by God’s word, though many other days in the Bible are. And the gift thing: what’s that all about? Most say that the gift-giving represents the ultimate gift given to mankind by God, the baby Jesus, but trust me, that means many different things to many different people.
Most people walking the face of the earth are familiar with the Judeo-Christian representation of the gospel. Christ came to die on the cross to satisfy God’s demand that the penalty of sin be payed for because God is a righteous, holy, judge. But why did Christ come as a baby? Well, lest you see God as judge only, this shows another side of God’s loving character towards mankind. Christ came and first lived among mankind to fully identify with us and our struggles before enduring the incomprehensible shame and suffering of the cross. That’s God. He desires to have fellowship with us, and makes that desire known by coming to us where we dwell. His children will not spend eternity in heaven; God will come and spend eternity with us. Revelation 21:1-4 states it this way:
“I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The first heaven and the first earth were completely gone. There was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem. It was *coming down*[emphasis mine] *out of heaven from God.* It was prepared like a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. I heard a loud voice from the throne. It said, “Now God makes his home with people. He will live with them. They will be his people. And God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or sadness. There will be no more crying or pain. Things are no longer the way they used to be.”
Heaven first came down in the form of “Emmanuel” (God with us), but in the end, heaven will come to us, and dwell with us forever. But Christ came to offer us a gift that will make that eternal dwelling possible: the gift of righteousness; his righteousness, the only righteousness that can dwell with God. We receive this gift by faith alone because there is nothing we can do to earn it. Besides, we have all sinned in the past, and therefore, “all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory.” That’s the issue. What can we do by ourselves to gain the righteousness God requires? I think you know the answer to that.
However, if you have accepted this gift, you have been given the true righteousness of Christ in the truest sense. But like that new sweater grandma gave you for Christmas, will you put it on? “That, however, is not the way of life you learned when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:20-24).
In fact, the Bible says that those who have accepted the gift of righteousness by Christ, will put that gift on: “If you know that he is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him.” Sure, what still needs to be “put off” will remain in a continual lesser degree until Christ comes to get us; but, because of the day that Christ does say to remember, his return, let us be wearing the Christmas gift, and wearing it well: “And now, dear children, continue in him, so that when he appears we may be confident and unashamed before him at his coming” (1John 2:28).
paul
What Really Happened at Coral Ridge: Heavy-Handed Leadership is Part of the Gospel Sanctification Mystique
I have plowed through massive amounts of data / articles regarding the Coral Ridge Presbyterian split / controversy, and wow, what a gargantuan mass of theories, opinions, and “he said – she said.” But what happened at Coral Ridge is really very simple, and is being played out throughout the country on a continual basis. Actually, in all the information I consumed, the crux of the matter can be boiled down to a few excerpts.
First, the key to understanding what happened there is the theology of the new pastor, Tullian Tchividjian, hereafter referred to as “TT” (who in the world would ever name their child Tullian Tchividjian?). TT is a proponent of Gospel Sanctification, hereafter referred to as “GS.” One writer refuted an accusation against TT (by one person in the small group of dissenters who tried to have him expelled as the pastor) that he has a distorted view of the gospel. But in supposedly refuting that, he quotes TT as saying the following:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
In this quote, we see the theology of GS and why it caused big trouble at Coral Ridge. Notice that TT says plainly that he has come to a scriptural understanding of the gospel that “the vast majority of professing Christians” don’t share. Think about that statement, I mean really think about it. He is saying that he was once among “the vast majority of *professing* [that word is no accident] Christians” who HAVE THE GOSPEL WRONG! This is the mentality of GS proponents: they think they are on the cutting edge of a reformation that is saving Evangelicalism from a false gospel. What else can be surmised from this statement?
As a result, leaders in the GS movement do not intend to play nicely with papal minions of the Synergistic Dark Age, and they routinely kick butt and take names. The pattern is the same: new pastors assume leadership in a church that doesn’t know what GS is, and the church takes it for granted that their theology is orthodox. Then once in, they replace present leadership with those of like mind, and begin to make vast and rapid changes because they see that church as a bastion of falsehood. Then, dissenters are mercilessly mowed down and muzzled, usually via church discipline.
In all cases, the dissenters don’t have a full understanding of what they are dealing with, they just know something isn’t right. I saw this exact same GS pattern play out in a church in Dayton, Ohio, and it’s also exactly what happened at Coral Ridge. My thoughts on this were confirmed by a telephone interview with a person involved with the protesters at Coral Ridge. However, the particular church in Dayton didn’t have the ecclesiastical safeguards afforded Presbyterians, and some dissenting members actually fled to other states because of the intensity of the backlash from the GS leadership, and trust me, I’m not exaggerating. Other Christians have told me that their leaders simply refuse to discuss the issue with them, rightly observing that there is no premise for agreement when one party holds to a grammatical view of interpretation verses redemptive.
Before I move on, some of what I am saying here can be seen in the letter that Coral Ridge dissenters issued to the rest of the congregation in an attempt to have TT removed as their pastor: http://blackandwhiteministries.blogspot.com/2009/07/founding-pastors-daughter-raises-mutiny.html
In conclusion, much of the GS doctrine can be seen in TT’s statement if one observes closely and believes that words mean things. Instead of moving on to “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded,” we are supposed to move “more deeply” into the gospel. GS teaches that a deeper focus on the gospel results in Christ obeying biblical imperatives for us. TT has also insinuated this in other statements. You can also see the GS element of continual redemption (or the idea that Christians are continually re-saved) in this part of his statement:
“After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel” [then what do you do with John 13:8-10 ?].
Furthermore, the gospel is monergistic, so if we are sanctified by the gospel, that means we can do no more to be sanctified than we could do to be justified. Therefore, GS can be nothing more than a *let go and let God* theology. Also, the relationship or role of the Law would be the same, making it an Antinomian doctrine. Not being obligated to keep the Law or completely unable is the same difference.
paul
The Gospel Onslaught Against Discipleship
Meet Jim. He is in the midst of a very disturbing problem that torments him day and night, the kind of problem he never dreamed would inflict a believer. But he often says to himself: “maybe I’m not a believer after all.” In desperation he went to his pastor for help. His pastor seemed shocked and perplexed in regard to the revelation, and suggested that they pray about it (James 2:15-17). But Jim had already been praying intensely for many days with no end to the problem in sight.
Now we find Jim at a larger Baptist church on a Sunday morning; “more resources to help people” had been the reasoning that brought him there. He walks into the spacious foyer and peruses the many well-dressed people engaged in pleasant conversation. As he works his way through the crowd, he scans the faces of many people walking about while looking for something in their demeanor that would indicate that they could help. He then walks up to the Information table and opens a brochure about the church. He reads the information regarding the pastoral staff and wonders to himself: “Can these men help? Do they know what God would say about my situation? And if they can, will they have time? After all, they look like very important men and are probably very busy.”
Then Jim hears a call to worship through the elegant glass doors between the foyer and the large sanctuary. The sanctuary has a pricey, new, and contemporary feel which is impressive, but does little to arouse a glimmer of hope that Jim is looking for. Jim suffers through the praise music that lifts up the God that seems so far away from him, and anxiously awaits the sermon which may convey the answers he is looking for. The message is about the gospel. Is this what Jim needs? “Perhaps,” Jim thinks. “Maybe I missed something the first time; I certainly don’t feel saved!” But Jim has re-examined his original commitment to Christ and what he believed over and over again. Not only that, when he relocated from New York, he didn’t tell his present church that he was a Christian, but made a new profession of faith and was baptized, just to make sure. Jim gets in his car to go back to the chamber of dread he calls home, and as he watches the cheerful parishioners leaving for their own destinations, he wonders: “Why can’t I be like them? Whats wrong with me?”
Even as a new believer I found it bazarre: the whole evangelical mentality of “get people to come to church so we can get them saved” routine; it just didn’t jive with everything I was learning in the Scriptures as a new believer. Getting people saved was all that mattered while members in “good standing” were living with others out-of wedlock, and Christian couples who were married talked to their pets with more respect than they did each other. My first Halloween party as a Christian was also a dose of reality as I arrived at the church dressed like Moses holding a wooden image of the Ten Commandments, only to be mocked by vampires and werewolves. But most telling was the time I led a married couple / schizophrenics to the Lord and demanded that they be baptized and accepted into membership the following Sunday. The church reluctantly agreed, but I was approached by the church leadership afterward who stated the following: “Now that they are saved, we need to send them away where they can get help.”
This “gospel only, bag-em and tag-em (sanctifi-what?),” mentality that began in the 1950’s started to see the chickens coming home to roost around the time I got saved in 1983. Christians were not looking to the church to solve any of life’s deep problems, but were gathering at the well of philosophy with the rest of the world while chanting “all truth is God’s truth.” That’s when Dave Hunt published his book entitled, “The Seduction of Christianity” which sent shock-waves throughout the Evangelical community. While his book was a huge, and necessary challenge (he refuted the idea that Sigmund Freud was smarter than the Holy Spirit), it only stated the problem and offered no specific solutions.
How to use the Bible to help Christians with deep problems came via Dr. Jay Adams in the early 1970’s, but his biblical approach didn’t really pick-up steam until the 80’s. Barely anybody who is aware of the impact that this biblical counseling / discipleship approach had on the church will call it anything less than a reformation. But what was the church’s response to this rediscovering of biblical sanctification? While the first gospel wave made so much of salvation that sanctification was forgotten, the second wave claims that salvation and sanctification are the same thing. If you can’t beat-em, join-em together. Hence: “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” “So brother, you really think you’re saved by the gospel and then you move on to something else?” [envision person saying that with knowing smirk on their face].
Either way, the results are the same. The church wants to sell the idea that God has the power to save our souls, but He can’t save a marriage; the idea that he can save schizophrenics, but must leave them in their present condition (First wave). Or, the idea that mediation on the gospel alone empowers the Christian for holy living (Second wave). Trust me, the world ain’t buyin’. Christians should get a grip because “gospel” means “good news.” “News” means the same thing in the Greek as it does in English: it’s something that you hear that you haven’t heard before; once you embrace it as your own, it’s no longer “news.” This would seem fairly obvious. Furthermore, 2Corinthians 5:18-21 makes it clear that the gospel is a ministry of “reconciliation” entrusted to those who are already reconciled. Therefore, if we are already reconciled, do we “move on to something else?” Absolutely, and please take Jim with you.
paul
Do you Misrepresent the Pharisees? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian
I heard it again yesterday in a Sunday morning message: the Pharisees were really,really good at keeping the Law, but at the end of the day Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. Alas, proof that we can’t be justified by keeping the Law (which no one would argue with). The pastor, in this message that is one of many in his series on The Sermon on the Mount, even said something like this: “The Pharisees’ efforts at keeping the Law wasn’t the issue, they were good at keeping the Law.” But is that true? And by the way, considering who the audience was at that church (primarily saints gathered for worship and the hearing of the word), and the fact that his topic was the role of the Law in Christian living, why was he even discussing justification in that context? Based on his view of the Pharisees and their supposed efforts to be justified by keeping the Law, one of his statements to *us* was “you don’t keep the Law by trying to keep the Law.” Hmmm, really?
We certainly are not justified by “trying” to keep the Law, but should we try to keep the Law in order to please and obey our Lord? Yes, I think so. Now, I don’t know this pastor very well, but I know him well enough to know that he wouldn’t dream of synthesizing justification and sanctification, but due to the fact that our present church culture is awash in an antinomian doctrine that does just that, are pastors propagating such a synthesis unawares? Yes, I think so. In his sermon notes, the top of the page has statements like ”Things Jesus wants us (“us” would presumably be Christians) to know about the Law.” The top part of the notes are also replete with “we” in regard to the Law, but the bottom part has statements like: “We live in the Age of Grace; salvation is not of works,” but yet, the whole message clearly regards the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. Therefore, whether unawares or otherwise, he clearly extended the relationship of the Law in regard to Justification into the realm of sanctification.
Here is where we must call on our good friend Jeff Foxworthy who developed a program for helping people who may be rednecks but don’t know it. He presents several different questions from different angles of thought, and depending on the answers to the questions, “you just might be a redneck.” Likewise, if you misrepresent the Pharisees, you just might be an antinomian without knowing it.
First of all, we can see from the very same proof text used to demonstrate the idea above that the Pharisees were not guilty of attempting to keep the Law in order to be justified:
[19] “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19,20).
So, as the reasoning goes, verse 19 indicates that “we” should revere God’s Law, but since the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law (an assumed interpretive criteria) we shouldn’t “try” to keep the Law because that’s what they tried to do, and our righteousness must surpass theirs because you can’t be saved by keeping the Law (and again, why are we discussing salvation in this context to begin with?). But we can see just from this text alone that this interpretation is not true. In every literal English translation that I could find, the coordinating conjunction “for” links verses 19 and 20. As we know, coordinating conjunctions join two complete ideas together and indicates the connection between the two. In all cases, the translators saw fit to translate the conjunction “for” from the Greek texts. If Jesus was contrasting the two ideas, a different conjunction would have been used like “but,” ie., the Pharisees do verse 19 really well, “but” not perfectly, therefore you need a righteousness that is perfect (this is true, but not what Christ is referring to here). No, the conjunction used is “for” which indicates “reason”(reason why): because the Pharisees were guilty of verse 19, they (the audience) were not going to enter the kingdom of heaven if they where like the Pharisees in regard to habitually breaking the Law of God and teaching others to do so. Also, I think the Lord’s reference to being the least or the greatest “in the kingdom” (verse 19) is in reference to degree and set against the example of the Pharisees who were guilty of doing (breaking the Law and teaching others to do so) habitually which was an indication that their souls were in peril. Therefore, even if the assumption regarding the Pharisees ability to obey the Law outwardly is true, it’s the wrong transition; a better transition would be “but” and would read something like this: “Christians should obey the Law ‘but’ even if you keep the law as good as the Pharisees do, it will not get you into the kingdom, so you need a righteousness that surpasses theirs.”
Granted, depending on how you diagram the sentence, you might be able to make a case either way, but is it true that the Pharisees were experts at keeping the Law outwardly? No. From other Scriptures we know that the Pharisees were guilty of verse nineteen; specifically, they replaced the Law with their own traditions. That’s why Jesus immediately launches into the whole “you have heard that it was said….but I tell you”starting in the following sentence (verse21). Not only that, Jesus says specifically in Matthew 15:1-9 that His contention with the Pharisees (and the teachers of the law as exactly referred to in verse 20) was the fact that they twisted the Scriptures according to their traditions:
[1] Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, [2]”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”[3] Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ [5] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ [6] he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”
The Pharisees were not proficient at keeping God’s law outwardly. In fact, they didn’t do so at all, but rather propagated teachings that were “rules taught by men.” Therefore, the Pharisees were guilty of neglecting the true Law and teaching others to do so (Matthew 5:19). They were not the poster-children for some campaign to demonstrate the futility of Law-keeping, especially in regard to believers. In fact, Christ said their lax attitude toward the Law was indicative of those who will not enter the kingdom. For this reason the Pharisees were not the greatest in heaven as the masses supposed, but the least, if they were even in the kingdom at all. Therefore, when Christ told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, He wasn’t talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ that the Pharisees were supposedly trying to obtain themselves for salvation (besides, they were not attempting to do that to begin with as I have demonstrated), but rather the true righteous behavior demanded of kingdom citizens. If Christ was talking about an imputed righteousness (for sanctification), why would He have not simply said so? For example: “Your righteousness must not only exceed that of the Pharisees (which wouldn’t have been hard to do anyway, and therefore by no means a profound statement by Christ), but ( a contrast conjunction) must be a righteousness that comes from God alone”…for sanctification.
If you misrepresent the Pharisees as the first century poster-children for “let go and let God theology” because they supposedly tried to keep the Law, you just might be an antinomian. But in part two, we discuss another question that may give credence to the possibility: Do you misrepresent obedience as outward alone? Well then, you just may be an antinomian.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment