In Search of Eschatological Significance, Part 2: Adams’ Challenge Demands a Closer Look
“All Scripture is profitable….that the man of God may be complete for every good work.” “Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” Therefore, eschatology (about 25% of Scripture) is just as important for living the Christian life as anything else in Scripture. How will properly understanding eschatology make one a better Christian, and better enable us to help other Christians? I don’t know yet, but the first step is making sure my present understanding is correct. If my goal is to know this for purposes of change—why not go to the change guru himself, Jay Adams, to investigate his biblical perspective on this issue?
So, I’m pre-everything, and reading “The Time is at Hand” by Adams. His eschatological views are not dispensational—that’s probably an understatement. As I said in part one, I found his initial arguments interesting, but they certainly did not put me in any fear that a change of position might be forthcoming. His argument in chapter three concerning duplication is compelling though I would disagree with him that this argument alone is the coup de grace for dispensationalism. However, in the latter part of chapter three, he presents the argument of what I call “finality.”
If you’re a dispy like me, you see the rapture as giving those who are left behind a second chance, but as Adams points out, Jesus often spoke of his “second coming” as closure for salvific opportunity (“….like the days of Noah, so will be…..”) What makes this argument even more disturbing is Adams’ citing of the wise and foolish virgins parable which embodies the imminent expectancy of pre-rapture. I could also raise him one with my lingering question concerning the “judgment of the nations” at the end of the tribulation period. If during the tribulation period, you can only buy or sell with the mark of the beast, how are a third category of people going to be able to help Christians during the tribulation period? (Matthew 25:31-46). And the life application issue is: the difference between second chance and no second chance with eternity hanging in the balance.
The challenge demands a closer look as I read forward.
paul
In Search of Eschatological Significance: Part 1
I rejoice in the freedom we have in Christ. Not freedom from his law, but the freedom we enjoy by following his law and applying it to our lives. And by the way, I hate the term “Ten Commandments,” as if Exodus Twenty represents some kind of theological dichotomy in God’s word. ALL of Scripture is the “perfect law of liberty.” It’s all the law. We live by “EVERY word that comes from the mouth of God.” Paul told Timothy that ALL Scripture was profitable for instruction etc. Paul didn’t list separate uses / purposes for the Old Testament and New; so both Testaments serve the same purpose for each category Paul presented to Timothy—both are equal for edification that the man of God will be “fully equipped.”
Everywhere I look, I see Christians in darkness because they follow the lamps of other people. Our own lamps lit by the Holy Spirit determine who we should follow. The mighty apostle said, “Follow me AS I follow Christ.” Our own illumination via the Holy Spirit determines whether they are followers of Christ or not—NOT them!
All of my AC life I have been taught that eschatology is a “secondary issue.” But according to Matthew 4:4, there are no secondary issues; therefore, eschatology is twenty-five percent of our spiritual diet. How can a proper knowledge of eschatology applied to life make me a better Christian? How can it equip me to better serve Christ? How can I use this knowledge to adorn the gospel?
That’s what really matters—not the fact that I am a dyed in the wool pre-everything. I wonder: how many Christians are pre-everything because John MacArthur is? Though I am comfortable with my ability to defend PE, there are cracks in the dam. I think Christ says what he means and means what he says. I think the goal of the one who created communication is to be clear about what he says. He doesn’t want confusion. So, in regard to all of the events he spoke of in the Olivet Discourse, he said the present generation he was speaking to would not pass away till all of those events took place—for me, that’s a huge problem, though everything else seems to fit. I don’t like loose ends.
Ok, but if I am going to listen to another perspective, it’s not going to be from an a-mil hack; and remember, the goal is to discover eschatology’s role in helping us CHANGE. Well then, who better than Jay Adams? I have started reading his book, “The Time is at Hand.” I found his initial arguments interesting, but they did not make me fear that change was ahead. However, his arguments in chapter three concerning duplication are compelling, and have caused me to let my guard down for the rest of the book. Never the less, it’s still going to be a hard sell.
I look forward to the adventure ahead and pray that the Spirit will show me the importance of eschatology in change: “Those who have this hope purify themselves.” Also, I’m sure the old warhorse would love to have another notch on his belt—we will have to see.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 1: Saving Dr. Mohler [From the past, but I still had my sense of humor.]
Dr. Mohler,
Thank you for your prompt response to my open letter, http://wp.me/pmd7S-ww . Your response stated the following:
“I received and read with interest your letter received in my office on February 14, 2011. I appreciate your concern to uphold biblical doctrine, but I cannot recognize in your letter the beliefs of anyone that I know.
I stand for and teach the doctrine historically held by Southern Baptist and in complete accordance with our denominational confessions of faith.
I do appreciate your concern for the biblical fidelity and pray that God will always protect his church from error.”
Dr. Mohler, I fear that I have dropped the ball by not opening all of my mail sooner because of the following: you don’t know anyone who holds to the doctrine described in my letter, but you will soon be attending the 2011Gospel Coalition conference in Chicago. In order to protect your innocence, I am going to inform you of some of the men who will be there that you don’t know. Also, their pictures can be viewed here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/conferences/2011/#speakers so you will know them if or when you see them.
First, let’s review the primary concern expressed in my letter concerning Sonship theology:
“In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed ‘Sonship Theology’…. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, ‘We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.’ In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999 [correction: 1996]. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
‘This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life…It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.’”
First, let me also warn you that the Gospel Coalition could be promoting this doctrine as an organization. I’m sure you wouldn’t associate with them if you were aware of that, unless you, in fact, support the doctrine also, but that’s impossible because you said you didn’t know anyone who believes in Sonship theology. So, in regard to my first concern, let’s consider this excerpt from my letter: “[The doctrine] maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
On the Gospel Coalition website, their Confessional Statement is entitled “The Gospel for All of Life.” Hmmm, kinda sounds like “….the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.” They also say this in the same statement: “We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Evangelism or the unsaved is not the object of this sentence, “churches” are. And how will they have “new hope” and “compelling joy”? By “….grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Kinda sounds like “…maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error….and…. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification.”
But without further ado, let me caution you regarding those who you don’t know that will be at the conference.
Please look out for this guy; he will be there, and his name is David Powlison. Recently, he conducted a seminar at John Piper’s church and told the audience that Jack Miller was his mentor. He then proceeded to complain that Jay Adams criticized Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves.” However, he forgot to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book. Maybe Dr. Powlison doesn’t agree with his “mentor” concerning Sonship theology, but then why would he criticize Adams for criticizing the Sonship mantra? Don’t know, but maybe if you meet him at the conference, you could ask. Let me know.
The next guy is Tim Keller. Please note his picture at the aforementioned link. He will be there also. He is well known as a Sonship advocate / teacher. In a post entitled, “Seven Rivers Church: a sonship home,” a pastor wrote the following:
“I’m somewhat new to the PCA and I’m still finding out many of the denominations strengths. One strength I’ve been blessed by is her sonship pastoral theology. Sonship is a brand of theology that places a great deal of emphasis on the saving benefits we have in Christ as redeemed children of God [that’s subtle]. It’s not afraid to talk about duty or commands of obedience that we are responsible for [that is—in its “gospel context”] but it does so from the vantage point of Christ redeeming work [right, like I said, in its “gospel context”]. It takes sin seriously but grace and transformation even more seriously [because we’re totally depraved and can’t keep the law anyway]. You can find Sonship theology in many churches in the PCA – such as New Life Churches in Philadelphia, Redeemer in NYC, and Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL.
Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary [that’s not my understanding, but for sure it came from Westminster and not the Bible], came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller [that would be Jack Miller], rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF [David Powlison], entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s [he will be at the conference] preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL)” http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/seven-rivers-church-a-sonship-home
Actually, I picked that quote but a google search with “Tim Keller—sonship” will produce a wealth of documentation connecting him to Sonship theology. I like the above quote because it mentions other names and gives me the opportunity to point out that many respected leaders in the PCA rejected Sonship and stand against it. One example can be noted here:
http://eastwoodchurch.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=1
I have a great idea; when you meet Tim Keller, ask him what Sonship theology has in common with The Gospel Coalition. If you can, let me know.
Next is Tullian Tchividjian. He will be there also. He said the following on The Gospel Coalition blog:
“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 once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. The gospel, in other words, isn’t just the power of God to save you; it’s the power of God to grow you once you’re saved. 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.”
Is it just me? I think many Southern Baptist would have a problem with that statement.
Be careful at that conference Dr. Mohler. I could list many more but they’re pretty soft targets—being Charismatics, postmoderns, and those who believe in baptismal regeneration and such. Which brings up one last question: Is it true that those doctrinal considerations are now secondary to “getting the gospel right”? If you can, let me know.
paul
No, No, No, Paul Washer Doesn’t Think You’re Lost Because of That, He Thinks you’re Lost Because You’re an Evangelical
I know this is all surreal, so let’s backup and take a look at what orthodox Christians believe. In what Dr. Harold L. Wilmington called “One of the best outlined, one-volume books on theology in print,” Floyd Barackman, a Reformed Baptist, writes the following on regeneration: “This concerns our being made spiritually alive and our having a new relationship with God” (Practical Christian Theology p.315). On justification, he writes:” Justification is the act of God whereby He acquits the gospel believer of the divine verdict of condemnation and declares him to be righteous. The unsaved person’s need for justification is seen in his condemnation by God and his lack of acceptable righteousness” (p.303).
While Barackman has plenty to say in the book about election (which he strongly advocates), he states the following regarding the practical application of regeneration: “Being members of God’s family and subjects of His kingdom (Jn. 1:12; Col. 1:13), we have the duty of learning His will and truth (Eph. 5:17; Ps. 1:1-3), walking in His will and fellowship (1Jn. 1:17), depending upon His provision and care (yet, He will not do for us what we can do for ourselves, 1Pet. 5:7; Mt. 6:8, 25-34), and yielding to His discipline (Heb. 121-15).
Dr. Jay E. Adams, who has received his share of criticism over the years, but has never been accused of being unorthodox as far as I know, writes the following in his critique of Sonship theology (GS’s mother) on page 35 of Biblical Sonship regarding regeneration: “Though the Spirit produces fruit, He does it through, and not apart from, human effort (which He initiates and sustains). This is clear from the fact that Christians themselves are commanded to become involved in the ‘pursuit of fruit’—the very same fruit that is said to be the fruit of the Spirit [let me add this to Jay’s statement: one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control]. This pursuit is real, involving biblical study and struggles with sin that issue in failures and successes.”
It is not my intention to write a book here, though one could, but I would also add some quotations from JC Ryle on this subject:
“But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith….in justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification [to set apart through regeneration] the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse” (Scriptural Holiness: Introduction).
Bottom line: a colaboring with God and man in regeneration has been the orthadox view from the beginning: “….and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith” (1Thess. 3:2 ESV). “For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building” (1Cor. 3:9 ESV).
Now enter “New Calvinism,” driven primarily by Gospel Sanctification or Sonship theology. It teaches sanctification and regeneration by faith alone. And: holds that any belief of colaboring in regeneration is the same as colaboring in justification. Granted, working for our legal decree (justification) from God is a huge problem because in order for that to be true, God would have to agree with us that we have the same righteousness Christ has based on our own efforts. This, of course, is an absurd notion, and damning.
But let’s be clear: GS proponents believe that the orthodox view of dependant colaboring in regeneration is synonymous with a colaboring for justification which is works salvation and a false gospel. They also believe that we are regenerated by contemplating the same gospel that saved us, over, and over, again. In the same way that we were saved by faith and repentance alone, we can only be regenerated by faith and repentance alone like we were for justification. This basic belief leads to all kinds of questionable theology, like the total depravity of the saints. Think about it, if you need the gospel everyday just as much as you did when you were saved, you must be no better than you were in regard to spiritual life before salvation, right? In fact, advocates of GS often insinuate that we are resaved daily, or each time we repent. Michael Horton has said that we only receive spiritual life when we “experience the gospel afresh.” Listen to me please, this doctrine is a serious departure from orthodoxy; God’s people must arise and confront it. Again, Adams writes the following on page 36 of Biblical Sonship: “Plainly, the error of substituting justification for regeneration (quickening) is at the heart of the difficulty that Sonship [and Gospel Sanctification] presents to the Christian. It fails to explain what God has done for him in making him a new creation and how he may conform to the will of God.”
Now, regarding Paul Washer. It would seem that the main thrust of his preaching is against easy believe-ism—Christians who make a profession of faith and don’t repent of anything. It would seem as such, but that’s not true. Washer, a Baptist (Southern, I think), as I am also, doesn’t believe that even “15% of my Baptist brethren are saved.” But easy believe-ism is NOT really the issue with Washer as many suppose: his real issue echoes all the other GS advocates; their issue is the separation of justification and sanctification being a false gospel. Supposedly, that’s why the vast majority of evangelicals are lost. Hence, we have the arrogant mentality on display that men like Washer are on the cutting edge of a new, radical reformation—add nausea. This is the idea put forth by John Piper in the video, The Gospel in 6 Minutes. Not to be outdone, Washer has a video out named The Gospel in 5 Minutes. The theme of both are the same; these men are modern-day Noahians preaching doom to the masses, gag. The fact that Michael Horton’s ministry is named, “Modern Reformation” is no accident as well.
I have written extensively in order to make my case for Piper and Horton, now I will state my case for Washer. In the statement of faith posted on the Heart Cry Missionary Society website of which Washer is the director, regarding regeneration, we read the following: “Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who makes alive those who are dead in trespasses and sins, enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.”
Note that this statement clearly says that regeneration is God’s work “alone.” Also note that the ongoing work of regeneration is for salvation: “savingly.” Furthermore, in Washer’s Gospel 101, he states the following:
“In this simple phrase, we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is “the” message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Uh, need I say more? Therefore, many things that Washer says that could be taken different ways must be interpreted through his theology. For instance, he says in The Gospel in 5 Minutes that Christians must continue in “faith and repentance.” If you didn’t know his theology, you would think: “Yes I agree, true Christians will continue to demonstrate the fruit of faith in God and the practice of 1John 1:9 (as well as other things that I am sure he would include, that statement is just a thumbnail sketch of perseverance).” But in fact, he is talking about faith and repentance only as a way of yielding to the Spirit for purposes of Christ obeying for us. Remember, he said regeneration is a work of God “ALONE.” Right? However, one might keep in mind that Christ clearly made a distinction between 1John 1:9 repentance and repentance unto salvation (John 13: 8-11).
Washer’s passion and his missionary works do not impress me; it is a zeal that is not according to knowledge. He plainly teaches a false doctrine and should be rejected by Christians at large.
paul
The Bridgers of Confusion County and Another Short Narrative
What’s going on? Christians are becoming confused, if not frustrated. Starting with me. I finally gave in and read a John Piper book some years ago because he was, and still is, all the rave in Reformed circles. The perplexity started on page 16 of “The Pleasures of God” where he writes the following: “The worth and excellency of God’s soul is to be measured by the object of his love.” Huh? But, he loves us! Man is the measure of God’s soul?! “Certainly, I am missing something,” I thought, so I read additional books written by him. I found them nebulous, ambiguous, subjective, non-applicable to real life, grandeurus, nonsensical, to name but a few descriptors. Adding to my perplexity was the fact that John MacArthur Jr. wrote a glowing forward in one of his books.
Then Steve Camp wrote an adorable piece projecting all kinds of frustration and confusion over Piper inviting Paul David Tripp to one of his conferences. Paul Tripp behaved badly at the conference by bragging about having a “S” word contest with his children. Many also found Piper’s relationship with “Mark the cussing pastor” confusing as well. Remember the sixties song, “Buttercup”? It was about a girl that just builds you up to let you down. Could we make that work? “Johnny-cup, (Johnny-cup baby), you build me up (build me up) just to let me down (let me down), and worst of all (worst of all), we even (we even) wrote a book of essays about you (about you) Johnny-cup (Johnny-cup) baby….”
Anyway, Johnny-cup, or the first Pope of New Calvinism, further dismayed many by inviting Rick Warren to his 2010 Desiring God conference. But it gets even worse. I was recently invited to “chime in” on the recent controversy surrounding Michael Horton posing with Rick Warren in a photo op. I clicked on the link and did some snooping around. Apparently, a discernment blogger by the name of Ingrid Schlueter posted on the controversy and drew heavy fire as a result, probably along the lines of what I get for criticizing guys who know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul. How dare me. In the process, I learned a new term: “Bridger.” Apparently, it refers to someone who builds bridges between Reformed purity and others like Warren. MacArthur has a huge problem with Warren, but he loves Piper, who loves Warren, and…., uh, anyway, it would appear that Schlueter threw up her arms in disgust and canceled her discernment blog—not a good thing in our day because intestinal fortitude in regard to defending the truth is in short supply; we can make necessary adjustments later. Also, it would appear that her critics disingenuously presented her protest as her having a problem with Horton merely being photographed with Warren, but it was really much more than that. Furthermore, I perused one blog that seems to be one of her critics that also promotes Paul Washer—a GS hack. Is Ingrid another victim of the silent killer? So, here is part one of my contribution (“chime”): she needs to dust herself off and remember that those who defend the truth will always be in the minority. We don’t need fewer defenders right now.
Now about the photograph. Horton is posing with Warren who MacArthur says preaches a false gospel, but Horton and MacArthur like each other and have done at least one conference together, and Horton has also been critical of him in the past although he also admires him for many reasons (Warren, not MacArthur), and…. anyway, here is why the photo is such a big deal: Horton is not only in a frame with Warren, the photo projects—bosom buddy; long lost friend; top dawg; thinkin’ of makin’ him leader of my posse (Horton, not Warren); etc. And get this, because it’s just too rich: even though Horton has accused Warren of being an Arminian in the past, there in the picture between them, is a bust of John Calvin! Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid; c’mon girl, you gotta learn to laugh about it sometimes. God allows satire.
This brings me to the second tone of my chime. What’s really going on here? Answer: first gospel wave, postmodernism, second gospel wave, or Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology. In all of the aforementioned events that I cite, folks are just spearing the symptoms. As far back as 1992, I remember a young pastor saying, “My generation is comfortable with contradictions”(if something’s good, it’s “bad” etc.). Right, that’s postmodernism. John MacArthur, who associates with those who hold to postmodern-like thinking, wrote an excellent expose on postmodernism in “The Truth War.” I recommend the book, not his friends. Confused?
Starting in the fifties, a member of the largest denomination in the world, Billy Graham, started the first gospel wave. Basically, all that mattered/matters is getting people saved. Even as a young Southern Baptist, just beginning to learn God’s word in 1983, I perceived the constant preaching of the gospel at church as antithetical to the Scriptures. A plenary gospel concern clearly replaced discipleship. This led to an all but total inability on the part of Christians to take the word of God and help people with real-life problems—which led to pastors (at least in SB circles) to farm-out counseling to schools of thought conceived by those who admitted that they hated God. When Dave Hunt shook Christianity with “The Seduction of Christianity,” decrying the integration of Psychology and Christian truth, it addressed a symptom and offered no solution, except “stop it.”
The solution came via Dr. Jay E. Adams’ biblical counseling model. I think the fact that Jay Adams is known as “the father of biblical counseling,” and his ministry started with the book “Competent to Counsel” (1972?) should make my point here: 1972 is a long way from Pentecost which demands some sort of explanation as to why anybody would be called such a thing. An experience I had recently might help to answer that question. I was at a pastor’s conference about eight months ago and witnessed the following firsthand: pastors bragging that they “didn’t allow counseling to distract them from ‘the gahhhhsssfull’” The gospel? I was an elder in a church where twelve people were saved in one year through its counseling program that was based on the biblical model propagated by Adams. When you show people that God knows what He’s talking about, they will also tend to look to Him for salvation as well. Personally, the model had radically changed my own life prior to that.
Nevertheless, this first gospel wave primed the church to fill the void (caused by a limited repertoire of spiritual weapons) with not only psychology, but postmodernism, which rejects propositional truth. The “Christian” form of postmodernism holds to something like this:
“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, “The Truth War” J. MacArthur, emphasis added).
The combination of the first wave and postmodern thought also primed the church for the second gospel wave, Gospel Sanctifcation / Sonship theology. The fist wave emphasized the gospel, or salvation, to the exclusion of sanctification. The second wave said: “Hey, not only is sanctification not important, it’s the same thing as justification” (gospel salvation). Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (Jack Miller / Jerry Bridges), and “The same gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you.” The second wave also borrowed the Christian Postmodern[ism] hermeneutic to make this approach plausable: “The Bible is about the person of Jesus Christ, it is His story, not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” “The word of God is a person.” The GS/Sonship hermeneutic serves the same purpose as Christian Postmodernism; it’s used to put ourselves into the “gospel narrative,” ie., the Bible. In fact, Michael Horton’s teachings are often flavored with this idea of “entering the gospel drama.” Once the prism from which we interpret the Bible is narrowed to the single theme of the gospel, from there, anything goes. Open your Bible and randomly put your finger anywhere; unless it happens to be a passage that is gospel specific, and if a gospel message must be forced upon that passage, twenty different people will yield twenty different interpretations of that text. But that’s ok, because all twenty interpretations are about the gospel! Follow? You can’t go wrong if your take is “gospel centered.” Final equation: objective ideas that can be drawn from the text are OUT—the “objective” gospel that yields subjective truth about the “personhood of Christ” as opposed to what he objectively commands are IN.
Therefore, regardless of the radical results yielded by the Adams model, his objective approach drew much intense fire from a church already deeply entrenched in schools of thought hostile to propositional truth and imperative-driven behavior. I firmly believe that this simple, contemporary historical perspective forms much of the confused landscape we see today. For sure, doctrine is secondary to Gospel Sanctification. That’s why Charismatics like CJ Mahaney, a GS proponent, are welcomed into the New Calvinist camp with open arms, with many scratching their heads regarding the new label: “Reformed Charsimatic.” As far as the rest mugging together in photo ops and conferences—particular truth held by others is just simply not that important—other things are, while the confused laity are still primarily looking for leaders to stand on particular truth and shun those who don’t.
But if the laity is waiting, they better not hold their breath while doing so. And really, is a whole bunch of this really about selling books? New ideas sell books. I am reading “The Story of the Church” by Charles M. Jacobs—an oldie, but goodie. He talks about how the first century church rejected academia all together, as Jesus did to a great degree. It’s obvious that the elite, religious academians controlled the information when Jesus came onto the scene—this is a constant theme throughout the New Testament. According to Jacobs, until the second century, the educated elite were barred from eldership. Sometimes, I wonder if the laity in this country will ever tire of being led around by the nose via the who’s who of the evangelical world. But at the very least, leaders should be held to biblical standards and boycotted when they don’t measure up. As Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
And p.s.—Ingrid, pray about putting you blog back up.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments