An Open Letter to Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.
Dr. Mohler,
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul Dohse and I am a member of a Southern Baptist church in the Dayton, Ohio area. I also have the privilege of serving there as director of men’s ministry.
The purpose of this letter is the following: to request that you withdraw your association with Together for the Gospel (T4G) because the organization promotes a particular false doctrine. This letter will be posted on my blog as an open letter because several such letters to individuals and organizations have been ignored. In addition, it will make the continuance of my grievance to others within the Convention expedient as I am a layman with many other responsibilities.
I have no problem with Calvinism, but I cannot express in words how disappointed I am with you and others for turning a blind eye to grievous error from any individual who claims to be a Calvinist. Apparently, Calvinist nomenclature is a license to teach anything that one sees fit. As I continue to research this doctrine (not Calvinism) that is sweeping through Southern Baptist circles, at times it seems surreal that this ridiculous doctrine is being propagated in broad daylight, while you and others lend it your credibility. Because you are President over the “Flagship Seminary” of the SBC, I also fear that you have embraced this doctrine personally.
When I was a student at the WA Criswell Institute of Biblical Studies in the early eighties, we were taught to be leery of any doctrine that had a short history. Such is the case with the “gospel-driven life,” or Gospel Sanctification as some call it. 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.” Yet, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, DA Carson, Tim Keller, and many others promote the idea that this doctrine has been the true gospel from the beginning, and God is using the “New Calvinism” movement to reveal the “unadjusted gospel” in our day.
Many teaching this doctrine today were mentored by Jack Miller; such as, Tim Keller and David Powlison. 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. 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.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Adams also said the following in another publication: “Aberrations of the faith found in such movements as Sonship should be pointed out and rejected. These movements – both large and small – constantly plague the church” (Jay E. Adams, “Hope for the New Millenium,” Timeless Texts, Woodruff, SC, 2000, p.44).
A cursory observation of statements made at the 2010 T4G conference would easily identify Gospel Sanctification (the supposed “unadjusted gospel”) with Sonship Theology. Furthermore, many should be wary of the “unadjusted” gospel’s unorthodox phraseology: repentance is now “deep repentance”; obedience is now “new obedience”; church discipline is now “redemptive church discipline”; and progressive sanctification is really “progressive justification.”
There is a controversy concerning the influx of Calvinism into the SBC, and rightfully so because the soundness of a doctrine is often determined by where it ends up, and in this case, “New Calvinism.” New Calvinist seem to be in a contest to see who can devise the newest / profound angle on this doctrine. Recently, Tim Keller suggested that a sound profession of faith must include “repentance from good works.” Constantly insinuated by others aforementioned, but specifically stated by Paul David Tripp, is the idea of the total depravity of the saints. He plainly states in How People Change that Christians remain spiritually dead. And, ”When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” John Piper has stated that he went on his recent sabbatical to eliminate several different “species of idols” that he discovered in his heart, and mentioned Tim Keller and Paul Tripp as being knowledgeable about these things. In How People Change, Tripp states that these idols of the heart can be discovered by asking ourselves “x-ray questions.”
Dr. Mohler, is this what Southern Baptist believe? That we grow spiritually by reciting the gospel to ourselves everyday? That every verse in the Bible is about justification? That Christians are totally depraved? That we should go idol hunting in our hearts using x-ray questions? That sanctification is by faith alone? And not previously mentioned: that colaboring with God in sanctification is a false gospel because “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination”? Like Tullian Tchividjian, should we endeavor to be accused of teaching antinomianism for the purpose of accreditation regarding the “true gospel”? Should we practice redemptive church discipline which often results in the excommunication of Christians for non-attendance and not tithing?
I tell you the truth Dr. Mohler, at times I wake up in the morning and wonder if this is all a dream. After all, you are, according to some, the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S.” So, obviously, it’s difficult for me to believe all of this is going on. I know some say that the SBC is on life support, but Dr. Kevorkian in the form of New Calvinism is not the answer. I am asking you to stand for the truth, or publicly state that you believe this doctrine without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse
My Reply to Frank Turk’s Reply
Frank, Though I posted my note to you on my blog, your reply will be kept confidential unless you give permission otherwise. I found your reply gracious and with a spirit worth pondering. That's why I am going to share my heart with you on this in no uncertain terms. The reason is because I, at this time, do not share your patience with Horton, TT, DA Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller, et al. I believe they are fostering a doctrine that was conceived by the late Jack Miller (Prof of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary) some 30 years ago that was known as "Sonship Theology." Jay Adams wrote an apology against it (a book published by Timeless Texts in 1996). Though Horton and others have tweaked it to some extent, the doctrine is virtually identical to what they teach, and many of these men attribute the teaching to him directly (Jack Miller) while others were mentored by him. I also believe that these men think synergistic sanctification is a false gospel and that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, with their arrogance and visions of grandeur following. The doctrine is a radical departure from orthodoxy: repentance is now "deep repentance," obedience is now "new obedience," church discipline is now "redemptive church discipline," and progressive sanctification is really progressive justification. And unfortunately, as I am sure you already suspect, I have personal life experience with how this doctrine is effecting (trashing) the lives of many Christians. Its ill effect on biblical counseling is also cause for major concern. Sorry Frank, I think these men are dangerous and I think they need to be exposed. Perhaps they mean well, but the results are the same regardless. Thank you for your kind response and your prayer that God will be with me. Paul Dohse.
Is Gospel-Driven Sanctification Really “Sonship” Theology?
Two weeks ago, sitting in my office with my feet propped on a bookcase and chatting with Susan, I happened to be looking up at my Jay Adams shelf. Since it had been too long since I’d read any of his material (at least two weeks), I put my feet down on the floor and began perusing what I haven’t lent to other people; and thinking, “Hmmm, wonder what this is: ‘Biblical Sonship.’”
I always read the preface. So you have the cover, cover page, copyright, contents, and preface. I was reading the first page of the preface, and in the third paragraph, when I read the following: “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 in the good news.”
Barely a hundred words into the book, and I was stunned. That is the exact same thesis as gospel sanctification, a movement I have been researching for three years. The movement (gospel sanctification, or “gospel-driven sanctification”) is huge and its propagators are the who’s who of the evangelical world that they are supposedly trying to save: DA Carson, Michael Horton, Paul David Tripp, David Powlison, Tim Keller, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Devers, Francis Chan, Jerry Bridges, and many, many others. The theology is also propagated by several missionary alliances and church planting organizations like the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa.
As Jay Adams notes in his book, the Sonship movement was started by Jack Miller, a former professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary who is now deceased. According to other sources, Jack Miller’s epiphany concerning Sonship occurred while he was on an extended trip in Spain with his family. An article I read by Geoff Thomas in Banner of Truth was written in 2003, and he mentions the trip to Spain as being about twenty years prior; so figure 1980, or around that time, for the birth of Sonship theology.
In all of my studies concerning gospel sanctification, I had never heard of Jack Miller or Sonship theology, but it became clear from the Jay Adams book that the two theologies are the same thing with the usual peripheral aberrations from the basic form; and the basic form being, but not confined to, progressive justification, sanctification by faith alone, substitutionary monergistic sanctification, and the total depravity of the saints. There is absolutely no doubt – this theology turns orthodoxy completely upside down while the intestinal fortitude of the rest of the evangelical community wanes. Apparently, big names like Jerry Bridges and others are like GM, they’re just too big to fail. As one brother wrote to me: “How dare you criticize DA Carson, one the greatest theological minds of our day!” Furthermore, as Dr. Peter Masters has noted, it is interesting that doctrine doesn’t matter if you are “gospel-driven” in your beliefs. For example, Charismatic and emergent church leaders are readily excepted into the new Calvinism clan if they are “gospel-centered.”
But what came first? Sonship, or gospel sanctification? Did gospel-driven sanctification come from Sonship? Is Jack Miller the father of new Calvinism? It’s looking that way. Historical precedent for gospel sanctification (GS) cannot be found before (approx.)1980. It is the brainchild of Dr. David Powlison, professor at CCEF, the biblical counseling wing of Westminster Seminary. GS came out of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” curriculum developed and taught by him at Westminster. Two of his former students articulated the doctrine in the book “How People Change.” This is made clear by Powlison in the forward he wrote for the same book. Shortly prior to the book’s release, the doctrine’s theories were tested in local churches via a pilot program. In the reformed church I attended that was part of the pilot program, the curriculum was taught in a Sunday school class with a limited number of participants.
“How People Change” articulates a theology that is virtually identical to Sonship theology. And, it just so happens that David Powlison himself claims that Jack Miller is his “mentor.” He recently stated this as fact while teaching a seminar at John Piper’s church, and in the midst of fustigating Jay Adams for criticizing Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves everyday” *see endnote. I thought this phrase was originally coined by Jerry Bridges, but Jerry Bridges attributes the phrase to Jack Miller in the preface of “The Disciplines of Grace.” Tim Keller, a looming figure in the new Calvinism / gospel-driven / gospel sanctification movement, was teaching GS under the “Sonship” nomenclature as late as 2006. On the Puritan Board, a faint cry for help was uttered by a person saying the following: “ The Sonship theology of Tim Keller has taken a hold of the church I attend. Am I the only one, or does anyone else have a problem with this?”
Furthermore, my research would strongly suggest that the development of other contemporary theologies like New Covenant Theology, (many attribute its conception to Westminster Seminary sometime during the 80’s or 90’s), heart theology (definitely conceived at Westminster during the 90’s), redemptive-historical hermeneutics, and Christian hedonism (latter conceived by John Piper in the 80’s) were primarily driven by the need to validate Sonship / GS doctrine. Sonship needs the NCT perspective on the law, the supposed practical application of finding idols in the heart via heart theology, the perspective of how Sonship is experienced through Christian hedonism, and more than anything else, an interpretive redemptive prism supplied by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But why has gospel sanctification enjoyed freedom from ridicule not afforded to Sonship? They are, for all practical purposes, the same exact thing and encompass many of the same teachers. Probably because gospel sanctification has the word “gospel” in it. In this age of hyper-grace, people will shy away from any appearance of being against “the gospel.” I have to believe that the movement has traded the Sonship label, with its share of bullet holes, for the “gospel-driven” label. Sonship has been besieged by two works, the book by Jay Adams and a lengthy article by Van Dixhoorn, a former student at Westminster. Sonship has also been pelted with its share of the “antinomian” accusation, and rightfully so. In my second addition of “Another Gospel,” I write the following on page 78:
“….if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.”
At least one book, a lengthy pamphlet, and several articles defend Sonship against Adams and Van Dixhoorn, but the theological arguments are woefully lame. Nevertheless, my point is that gospel sanctification, though the same thing, is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout the church without controversy while unifying camps that are theologically suspect to say the least.
It is what it is; while mad theological scientist concoct all sorts of new potions in the lab and send their minions out to commit first-degree doctrinal felonies in broad daylight, while many who profess to love the real gospel say nothing. I pray that will change, while thanking God for those who love the truth more than the acceptance and praises of men.
Endnote:
Powlison failed to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book that is an apology against Sonship theology. Failure to mention that put Adams in an anti-gospel light as well as depriving him of the ability to contextualize the criticism. As an aside, Powlison, in the same seminar, criticized “idol hunting”; but yet, he is the inventor of “X-ray questions”(which he also mentioned in positive terms without the “X-ray” terminology, but rather something like “reorienting questions”) which are designed to identify heart idols (see page 163 of “How People Change”). His mentor, Jack Miller, developed a complex system of idol hunting that included twenty different categories of heart idols (Jack Miller, “Repentance and the 20th Century Man”CLC 1998). This kind of disingenuous double-speak is commonplace within the movement.
Commendation, and Hyper-Grace Pharisees
Offended, he was, when I told a pastor that his sermon was a “home run.” “I don’t hit ‘home runs,’” he said, obviously offended because I didn’t “give all of the glory to the Lord.” Besides, depending on his flavor of hyper-grace theology prevalent in our day, he might also believe that Christ actually delivered the sermon “through him.” Hence, we are merely lifeless vessels that Christ uses to do His work. It is more than fair to say that this kind of theology is being propagated by some of the most respected leaders of our day. Then there was the time I was talking to the recipient of an astounding gift from another Christian family who was a family of little financial means. The gift (to meet an important need) was a proverbial giving of the right arm. I commented to the recipient regarding how amazed I was at such a sacrificial gift. The response: “they didn’t give me anything, it was the Lord.” It was obvious that the recipient was not only offended by my remark, but was defending the other family from the sin of not “giving all of the glory to the Lord.”
Yes, grace is in the air like never before. Jesus does it all. As Steve Green sings, we are “empty vessels waiting to be filled.” We are empty, and all we can do is *wait* and hope that Jesus will do something in our lives, so when he does, everyone will know it was the Lord because we are “empty,” dead vessels. And as Steve Green also notes in the same song, “That’s Were The Joy Comes From,” when we see Jesus obeying for us. Therefore, to commend others is to deny that Jesus did it all; a sin worthy of receiving the dreaded label spelled P-h-a-r-i-s-e-e.
There is only one problem. We have let theologians of our day define *legalism* which the Pharisees were supposedly guilty of. Their definition of legalism is any effort on our part to do what God wants us to do. I like what Jay Adams has to say about this notion:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (“What is Sanctification” INS blog, September 16, 2010).
In a book that I would not recommend (“Introduction to Biblical Counseling” by the Master’s College faculty) because it gives unwarranted credibility to some who are not doctrinally sound (ie., David Powlison and others), Dennis Swanson rightly notes that “legalism is a term that is frequently tossed around without much thought to its meaning” (p. 381). He proceeds to define legalism in these biblical terms: “In legalism someone establishes an external standard of spirituality and then judges everyone by that standard.” And that’s what the Pharisees were guilty of. They mingled the Law of God with their own tradition making it “void” (Matthew 15:1-9). All of today’s much-ado-about-nothing regarding the fear that we will unwittingly offend God by doing what he wants us to do scripturally, because it is us doing it and not Him, is not legalism.
Though many other examples could be used, let me now continue to use “commendation” as an example of how this passive view of Scripture is actually legalism, and not our “own”(as if the exercise of our efforts automatically denies God’s efficacious involvement) efforts to please God. Simply put, to not recognize the good works of others (Christians, of course) because it supposedly takes glory from God and implies that we have a role in good works, is an external standard that is not biblical, and therefore is really legalism. The apostle Paul explicitly commands us to commend others and recognize them publicly, and did so himself on many occasions:
“So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me”(Philippians 2:29,30).
Paul also called Timothy God’s “co-worker” (1Thessalonians 3:2 ESV). I mean really, do we need to look up “co-worker” in Webster’s Dictionary? We are to commend those who do their part in God’s work. And frankly, I find the disclaimer “we know the Lord did it all” whenever we do commend saints, annoying. Let me use one more example other than “commendation” before I close. Since I mentioned him above, David Powlison has said to never tell a counselee to “just stop it,” and that the Lord would never say that to one of his children (see full article here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/will-the-poo-pooing-of-scriptures-plain-sense-ever-cease/ ) This is a standard set by Powlison, not Scripture (see John 5:14, Acts 15:29, 21:25, 1Peter 2:11). Abstinence is clearly one of many weapons in our sanctification repertoire. Again, many other examples could be cited, but legalism is the following of a false standard, not biblical standards, we call that “obedience.”
While claiming to be on a crusade to save the church from Pharisee-ism and legalism, they are really the ones that are the Pharisees of our day. Specifically, they are hyper-grace Pharisees.
paul
Gospel-Driven Counseling Part 3: Clouds Without Water, and Nine Reasons Why “Redemptive” Counseling Can’t Help Troubled Christians
One of Jude’s depictions of false teachers was “clouds without water”(v. 12). Clouds give hope during times of need that the land will finally be revived by rain. Likewise, false teachers appear to offer hope in times of need, but they are actually without the substance to deliver on the promise. Counselors who use the redemptive approach to counseling are not necessarily false teachers, but their approach will not help people; their counseling is clouds without water.
In the first two parts, I used Bill Baldwin’s article published in 1996 to demonstrate how proponents of Gospel Sanctification approach counseling, and will do the same in this post as well. I will make my first point from the following excerpt:
“When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course.”
Here, we observe two reasons in this statement why redemptive counseling will not help people. First, biblical counseling is not just about outward behavior, but also how counselees think. Biblical counseling calls for a change in thinking (ie., biblical thinking), and behavior also with both being curative. The redemptive approach lumps efforts to change thinking into the same category as behavioral change with the following nomenclature: “change by our own efforts” (which is supposedly wrong). Therefore, an emphasis on biblical thinking (which is very critical) will not be emphasized any more than outward behavior, which, as can be seen by Baldwin’s statement, is devalued to begin with. Another example of lumping biblical thinking together with “teeth gritting, pick yourself up by the bootstraps, legalistic, living by lists and do’s / don’ts,” ect., ect., is Paul David Tripp’s statement in “How People Change”:
“. . . and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior. Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to ‘think his thoughts’ and ‘act the way Jesus would act’”(p. 27, 2006 edn).
Notice also in Tripp’s statement that any effort to align our thoughts with the mind of Christ “omits….[the] work of Christ as Savior.” So, any effort on our part in the sanctification process is also likened to efforts to earn salvation. More on that later.
Secondly, as can be ascertained by Baldwin’s statement cited above, redemptive counseling makes a distinction between our work and the Spirit’s work in sanctification; when in fact, the two are seamless (the fruit of the Spirit is self control, Gal. 5:23). Counselors that suggest an either / or in the sanctification process reek havoc and confusion on counselees. To suggest that a counselee may not be walking in the Spirit even when he / she is obeying Scripture, because it may take effort, is to invite unhealthy introspection and mysticism into the counselee’s life. Besides, it’s a blatant contradiction to many verses such as Galatians 6:9. Jay Adams has stated the same concern this way:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (What is Sanctification, Institute for Nouthetic Counseling blog).
These are the first two reasons redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians – it discourages biblical thinking, and it equates our effort in sanctification with walking in the flesh.
Baldwin continues:
“He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.”
The third reason gospel-driven counseling will not help troubled Christians is because it distorts the biblical relationship of the Law to justification verses sanctification. In other words, redemptive counseling makes no distinction between the two and their relationship to the Law. This can be clearly seen in Baldwin’s above statement: the sole role of the Law is to lead the counselee back to the gospel as before he / she was saved, and not for the purpose of instruction as Paul clearly indicated in 2Timothy 3:16. Likewise, Michael Horton apes Baldwin when he wrote the following:
“The imperatives drive us [Christians (emphasis by underline mine)] to despair of self-rightousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior.”
Horton goes on to say in the same article (“Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living”) that an emphasis on deeds (ie., obedience) “leaves the sinner in the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.” The suggestion by Horton is that efforts at good behavior removes the righteousness of Christ from the believers life.
This is the third reason gospel-centered counseling will not help Christians; because it disavows the instructive value of the Law in the believer’s life.
Baldwin’s next statement will be considered for my next points:
“And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience [emphasis mine] held out in Scripture.”
Hence, instead of learning more and more about how to apply God’s imperatives / wisdom to life, and doing so, which is key to a sound Christian life (Matthew 7:24-27), “faith” is supposedly evoked by a continual revisiting of the gospel. Notice that the primary goal is to evoke faith, via the gospel, just like in justification. Therefore, redemptive counseling is the extrapolation of justification moving forward with no recognition of a sanctification that involves a co-laboring of the believer. In essence, it is sanctification by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone, which, and don’t miss this: results in “gospel obedience.” What is gospel obedience? Simply put, it is often referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” In other words, when we continually revisit the gospel, the same monergistic results of justification are to be expected in sanctification, and therefore, both are a total work of Christ only. Said yet another way, Christ obeys for us. In case you think Baldwin is some isolated crack-pot, consider this quote by Michael Horton:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57).
The following statement by Tullian Tchividjian should also be considered:
“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.”
Other extremes of this doctrine can be seen in Horton’s statement that, in essence, synergistic salvation is a false gospel. Therefore, since as Tullian Tchividian notes, a co-laboring in sanctification is the orthodox view among Evangelicals, redemptive counselors will begin their counseling relationship with most counselees by assuming they are lost, and will first focus on converting them to said doctrine. Furthermore, in marriage counseling, if one spouse accepts this doctrine and the other one doesn’t – the counseling will continue (erroneously) with a mixed marriage in view.
Another angle by Paul David Tripp can be added for good measure. On pages 171 and 172 ( starting in the last paragraph on page 171) of “How People Change,” Tripp propagates the idea that we are still spiritually dead as believers and are not an “improved version” of our old selves. Therefore, since Christ is the only one in us that is spiritually alive, we have unlimited potential because it is Christ in us that is doing everything (this, of course, is in blatant contradiction to Ephesians 4:20-24).
In conclusion on these points, the following are further reasons numbering four through eight of why redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians:
4. It tells the counselee that sanctification is by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone.
5. It tells the counselee that Christ obeys for us.
6. It replaces a deeper knowledge of God’s wisdom and its application to life with a mystical “deeper knowledge of the gospel.”
7. It often assumes that the counselee is not saved for erroneous reasons. This is obviously detrimental to a healthy and productive counseling process.
8. It will misinterpret marriages as mixed for erroneous reasons. This is also detrimental to productive marriage counseling.
Lastly, redemptive counseling presents the counselee with an erroneous picture of how sanctification is experienced. The counselee is told that when Christ is obeying for us, obedience will be experienced as a joyful, unconscious reaction. Note carefully what Baldwin says in the same article:
“If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin….Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that.”
Note, according to Baldwin (and likewise, others such as John Piper), true obedience is always joyful and unconscious, even to the point of obeying Scripture without first knowing what it says (because its not us obeying anyway). Should we teach troubled Christians these things? I think not. Besides, it makes a mockery of Matthew 26:37- 42. Obeying God can often be necessarily difficult for many reasons.
Gospel-driven counseling cannot, and will not help troubled Christians. Furthermore, evangelicals have a duty and responsibility to warn other Christians to stay clear of this counsel that promises to give hope, but cannot deliver. This theology and its counselors are clouds without water.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
14 comments