My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
Four Reasons Why I like Rob Bell
I have heard of Rob Bell, and have a lot of info about him backlogged to read. So, I know very little about Rob; but I can tell you I already like him. How can this be? And what do I specifically like about him?
1. He’s honest: I know this because Justin Taylor and John Piper were able to make judgments about his book before it was even published. Is he a universalist? I don’t know, I haven’t read the book yet, but he apparently has no bones about being clear as to what he believes, unlike those who pass judgment on him. Indicative of New Calvinism is the nuanced / ambiguous / subjective verbiage that they call “teaching.” Whether Piper or his fawning servant, Justin Taylor, or Keller, Powlison, Tripp, Mahaney, Chan, etc., etc, add nausea, you read their books, page after page after page saying, “I know what he’s saying and what he really believes, but he’s not coming out with it completely.” In each of their books, you can find one or two definitive statements that clearly define what they believe. Apparently, my new-found friend is not like that.
2. He’s humble: I know this because unlike most New Calvinists, he’s forthcoming about what he believes; again, unlike his accusers. New Calvinists believe they are on the cutting edge of a mega Reformation. They are experts concerning the “deep things of the gospel.” But here is the key to understanding their arrogance: they don’t come right out with what they believe because most of God’s people “aren’t ready for it yet.” Do you see the arrogance in that mentality? Apparently, Rob doesn’t think he’s on a higher spiritual plane than his followers. Apparently, he’s completely forthright about what he believes and is willing to let the chips fall where they may. Apparently, to Rob, disagreement with him doesn’t equal stupidity or lack of spiritual fortitude. How else could everybody already know he is a universalist before the book is in print?
3. He’s kind and compassionate: Unlike his accusers, he obviously doesn’t think there is anything wrong with having a deep desire for everyone to be saved. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t think hope is childish. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t equate fatalism with spiritual maturity. In “When I Don’t Desire God,” you finally put a finger on Piper’s stoic fatalism (after dieing the death of a thousand cuts) in the last chapter. Piper believes that joy cannot be obtained by laying claim to God’s promises. No, no, we can’t have that—that would be contrary to New Clavinism’s “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” To think God would do anything at all because of something we did is anathema! Like salvation, Piper believes that joy is a gift given by God (because he actually teaches that the two are synonymous) and we can’t do anything to obtain it. He pretty much says in the book that if you don’t have joy, all you can do is pray and hope God gives it to you. It doesn’t sound like my new friend Rob is up with that angle on things.
Of course, I don’t agree with universalism, but there is something worse—the merciless, haughty, mean-spirited character of New Calvinism. Point in case: The hero among New Calvinists because he excommunicated 256 parishioners for an unbiblical reason; nonattendance. Even a child can see the problem with this being a standard for church discipline. How many absences would it take to qualify someone for discipline? Twice? Four times? And how many in what time period? And where would you find such a standard in the Bible? Frankly, I find the audacity of New Calvinists to criticize Bell, over-the-top and totally disgusting. My cat usually sits on my desk and watches me blog; not today, she is on the floor puking-up hair balls—no wonder.
4. He’s courageous: He probably knew the Pope of New Calvinism was going to excommunicate him. Yes, did you hear about the tweet by Pope John the First? “Bye, bye, Rob Bell.” Am I the only one who sees the extreme arrogance in this statement? Think about it; bye, bye from what? The New Calvinist cartel? And who in the %#@& is John Piper to make that judgment? Is there anyone walking the face of the Earth that is more arrogant than John Piper?
Well Rob, get ready to join the Joel Olsteen club. That is a group of well-knowns that are considered expendable by the New Calvinist cowards. These are the group of men that they berate to demonstrate that they stand for the “truth” (gag). And don’t take it too hard my friend, Pope John Piper the First really doesn’t know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul, he only thinks he does; you can trust me on that one. And don’t be as hard on them as they are on you, after all, even whores have standards, and Justin Taylor thinks you crossed the line because that’s what John Piper thinks.
Rob, let me encourage you; I am going to buy your book, and if you are a universalist, well, I strongly disagree with that, but I wonder: what’s worse? A kind-hearted, humble, honest, couragous, universalist that knows he’s a universalist, or an arrogant antinomian that doesn’t know he’s an antinomian? Hmmmm.
paul
The Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Information Network
Again, thanks to those sending information to this ministry. The stories are the same; faithful Bereans searching the Scriptures themselves, sometimes for two years or longer, because their leaders would not be forthcoming concerning what they were spoon-feeding their congregations. This is the arrogance of GS leaders, withholding the whole truth until their (supposedly) spiritually inferior congregants are “ready” for the whole “truth.” Hence, they know themselves that the doctrine would be rejected out-of-hand if not gradually assimilated into what they are feeding parishioners. This is an across-the-board GS mode of operation that creates heavy-handed leadership and a cult-like atmosphere in many churches.
Some are sending information about the attitude of our spiritual kin concerning law and gospel. I am deeply indebted to one individual for introducing me to the writings of Walter Chantry. The book that was recommended to me should be arriving tomorrow. Apparently, Chantry’s implications in the book concerning NCT didn’t sit well with Reisinger and Zen—a very good sign. And Trust me (after reading Chantry’s “Today’s Gospel”), Chantry’s view of law and gospel doesn’t agree with Michael Horton either.
Also, a huge problem for the GS crowd is the novelty factor. Evangelicals have a hard time swallowing the idea that the church has been in the dark until 1980. Their (GS profs) disingenuous response is to claim Walter Marshall, Luther, and John Owen held to their views on sanctification. One reader is going to share some research possibly indicating that Walter Marshall’s writings were altered in a book about his supposed views on sanctification. Readers are also referring me to several people who were at ground level of the Sonship movement and were apposed to it, and I am hoping to personally interview those people in preparation for my chapter book on GS, which will articulate the history of the movement.
Almost everyone is saying, “You probably already know this but….” No! I haven’t been privy to any of it, keep it coming! The information is also great blog material, but I will not mention any sources by name unless it is a source that is already public. But, because I am a layman, and scratching out time for research is difficult, the information is invaluable. I am hoping for Feedback on the limited edition essay book to aid in the writing of the chapter book as well.
As you can see, the information coming in contends against bits and pieces of the movement. The goal of this network is to reveal the connection between all of these bits and pieces. You can also see the perplexity of some that certain respected individuals are doing this, that, or the other (inviting certain individuals to their conferences etc.). I find the perplexity concerning John Piper, especially Steve Camps piece, adorable. However, though there are many complicated pieces, the primary foundation is Sonship Theology which was not widely accepted by evangelicals until proponents changed to the “gospel” nomenclature. Therefore, the goal is also to identify the doctrine with the identity from which it came as a way to remove its cover.
In all, lest we forget: this is all driven by the conviction that doctrine determines what a life looks like, and unbiblical prescriptions for living the kingdom life must be contended against. That is love for others.
paul
Ice Skates in Hell and MacArthur’s White Witches
Has there ever been a bigger fan of John MacArthur Jr. than myself?
….I doubt it, but I guess we all have our Achilles heel, and with MacArthur it has been a serious lack of discernment over the years. Seems unbelievable when you consider his gargantuan contribution to Christianity. That’s why I didn’t believe what I heard in 1986 when I discovered, after just finishing “Inside Out” by Dr. Larry Crabb, that disciples of Crabb were running MacArthur’s counseling program at Grace Community Church. Crabb’s utter disdain for a literal approach to the Scriptures was evident in IO, comparing Scripture reading to a form of escapism “[like] masturbation” (p. 74: but Crabb also wrote statements concerning the inability of God’s word to effect “real change” on pages, 14, 15, 24 twice, 34, 37, 41, 43, 45 twice, 48, 89, 103, 120, 153, 157, 160, 177, 193, and 195). A former close friend of mine who was well acquainted with Mac told me sometime in 1988 that Mac had informed him that Grace Community Church had been “de-Crabbed.” I thought, “Ah, that explains it. GCC is a big church and he was probably busy writing a book or something; but boy, when he found out, those guy’s were outta there!” Not exactly; in fact, MacArthur and his staff had been repeatedly warned about Crabb’s theology, but apparently esteemed the protestants as less credible than Baalam’s donkey.
That brings me to the post someone sent me yesterday comparing Mac to the standard for solid evangelicalism. Ironically, the post was a contention concerning John Piper, a well documented close friend of Mac:
“Do you think there’s any chance whatsoever that the aforementioned Dr. John MacArthur would ever find himself listed there; [among heretics quoted favorably by Piper and endorsed by him] well, maybe about the time ice skates become standard issue in Hell.”
http://apprising.org/2010/06/16/questions-concerning-dr-john-piper/
Well my friend, then that would be the case. Despite outrageous, grossly unorthodox statements made by Piper and documented by men like Craig W. Booth ( http://thefaithfulword.org/wakeupcall.html ), MacArthur goes out of his way to grant Piper creditability at every turn. Unbelievably, Mac wrote the glowing forward to Piper’s theological Alice in Wonderland, “Desiring God,” and quotes Piper at least twice in his latest book, “Slave.” MacArthur also quotes Douglas Moo on page 142 who is one of the fathers of New Covenant Theology. A group of Master’s Seminary professors did a “Hey, NCT is kinda wrong but its propagators are really nice guys” series in, um, “contention” against NCT. Mac also quotes (in “Slave”) gospel sanctification guru Wayne Grudem.
Also, apparently skate-bent on getting a heretic for a keynote speaker at the 2007 Shepard’s conference, MacArthur invited CJ Mahaney, a (are you ready for this?) “Reformed Charismatic” to speak in Piper’s place. Also apparent is that CJ must not be like those wicked Charismatics Mac wrote about in “Charismatic Chaos,” but must be one of the good Charismatics running about. It reminds me of a blind date my step-son Ben had. Upon arrival, she introduced herself as a witch, but told him not to worry for she was a “white witch” (the good ones), not a “black witch”(the bad ones). Ben, not even a graduate of Master’s, didn’t buy it and soon left after some cordial conversation.
Also treading ice to replace the Crabb fiasco is the recently installed “Resolve” conferences which are part of the ministry repertoire at GCC. Here is what Dr. Peter Masters thinks of it:
“ Resolved is the brainchild of a member of Dr John MacArthur’s pastoral staff, [Rick Holland] gathering thousands of young people annually, and featuring the usual mix of Calvinism and extreme charismatic-style worship….[regarding a fixture / speaker at Resolved conferences (every year thus far),CJ Mahaney]….Charismatic in belief and practice, he appears to be wholly accepted by the other big names who feature at the ‘new Calvinist’ conferences, such as John Piper, John MacArthur, Mark Dever, and Al Mohler. Evidently an extremely personable, friendly man, C J Mahaney is the founder of a group of churches blending Calvinism with charismatic ideas, and is reputed to have influenced many Calvinists to throw aside cessationist views.”
Masters also commented on “Together for the Gospel” (T4G) which MacArthur also indorses:
“A final sad spectacle reported with enthusiasm in the book [Masters used information from Young, Restless, Reformed, by Collin Hansen] is the Together for the Gospel conference, running from 2006. A more adult affair convened by respected Calvinists, this nevertheless brings together cessationists and non-cessationists, traditional and contemporary worship exponents, and while maintaining sound preaching, it conditions all who attend to relax on these controversial matters, and learn to accept every point of view. In other words, the ministry of warning is killed off, so that every -error of the new scene may race ahead unchecked. These are tragic days for authentic spiritual faithfulness, worship and piety.”
Masters also comments on a prevalent mentality within the movement:
“The author of the book is a young man (around 26 when he wrote it) who grew up in a Christian family and trained in secular journalism. We are indebted to him for the readable and wide-reaching survey he gives of this new phenomenon, [neo-Calvinism] but the scene is certainly not a happy one…. Collin Hansen contends that American Calvinism collapsed at the end of the nineteenth century and was maintained by only a handful of people until this great youth revival, but his historical scenario is, frankly, preposterous. “
And Masters, in part, concludes with this: “The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”
MacArthur’s list of white witches is getting longer every year, and it seems to be effecting his theology as well. Mac has always taught with a superb balance of the vertical and horizontal, but in recent years, his teachings have become overly vertical, following in the way of John Piper who’s teachings offer little, or no practical application of the Scriptures. It’s all about “beholding as a way of becoming.” Notice in his book, “Slave” that he masterfully articulates what it is to be a slave to Christ, (what it looks like) but includes very little biblical information on how to apply that reality to our lives. However, admittedly, it could be my own incorrect interpretation because I no longer trust Mac because of his associations. There is just too much creepiness in all of this, like the syrupy interview conducted by antinomian / mystic Justin Taylor who interviewed Mac and Piper regarding how they became friends. It was a shameless, “see—Piper is orthodox” infomercial conducted by an individual (Taylor) who had a book of essays written and published to praise Piper. Of course, a team of wild horses could not have pulled Mac away from contributing to the book.
So, does Mac think his legacy is safe? Yes, maybe he has accomplished so much that he can now let his guard down. But what about Jimmy Swaggart? Unfair Comparison? I don’t know; compromise with a harlot, or compromising the truth from a lofty position given by the Lord, which is worse? Hmmmm. Oh, hold on, my phone is ringing: “Hi Ben! Your kidding? No, he is happily married. Ok, I’ll hold…. Uh, ok, hmmm, gee, I don’t know, I will try to find out. Ok, bye.”
It was Ben. The white witch called him. She wants to know if Rick Holland is married.
paul
Go Easy on Jenn—She’s Just a Good New Covenant Theology Girl
Recently, friends of this ministry have been sending me some good information and links as Christians are beginning to realize that something doesn’t smell right in reformed evangelical circles. This week, I will be referencing / compiling this information in the right-hand column of this blog. For instance, another blog has recently added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive. This information also makes it much easier for me to blog, being a layman and having other concerns.
In one link sent to me concerning John Piper’s disturbing connections to Rick Warren and others
( http://apprising.org/2010/04/26/is-this-doctrinal-and-sound-dr-john-piper/ ), the professing Christian / lesbian / musician Jennifer Knapp is mentioned as an example of Rick Warren’s “just be who you are” idea:
“’Rick Warren, in his talk at TED2006, stated (at approx. 21:00 in the video) that ‘God Smiles when You Be You’. He states a few seconds later that God gets pleasure out of ‘you being you.’ Friends, there’s a big problem with this message. Rick was speaking to an audience that was primarily non-Christians. Jesus Christ was never mentioned. Instead a humanistic message that ‘God loves us for being us’ was given. This message is not the Gospel, obviously, but the worst part, is that as a Christian pastor, Rick Warren basically just opened the floodgates for any behavior at all. Believers and non-believers alike can now simply do whatever they want, and think (based upon Rick) that God will smile upon them, and receive pleasure from people being whoever they desire to be.
After properly refuting that man-centered fantasy biblically Willman says:
‘Now let’s take Rick’s message and apply it to Jennifer Knapp, the ‘Christian’ who is now publicly stating that she’s a lesbian. She appeared on Larry King Live just the other day, and made this statement:
Larry King: You say you’re the happiest you’ve ever been right now?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m pretty darn happy.
Larry King: So you’re glad all of this happened?
Jennifer Knapp: I am not a regretful person.
Larry King: No, but you feel better?
Jennifer Knapp: I’m… I… I feel blessed to be able to fully be who I am. I love being able to be a musician and part of that process for me as a musician is being open and honest and to not feel like I have to lie or hide anything. I don’t necessarily want to talk about it all the time, but I don’t have to hide it either.
So based on what Rick Warren states, that God takes pleasure in ‘you being you’, Jennifer is currently being smiled upon by God, and He is taking pleasure in the fact that she is a lesbian.’”
As I attempt to use this blog to network information about gospel sanctification, I will continue to remind folks that the current neo-Calvinism movement is primarily made-up of New Covenant Theology and the idea that the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. What many of these bloggers do not yet understand is John Piper’s theological contribution to neo-Calvinism; namely, Christian hedonism. In other words, and as they already, I’m sure, strongly suspect is that these guys plp together for a reason. New Covenant Theology includes the idea that Christ came to fulfill the law (and thereby eliminating its need) and replaced it with a single law of love. What “love” is—is at the discretion of a believers conscience. I have seen elders operate by this approach firsthand. This theology drives Knapp’s life. Here are my comments on this in another post:
“Just this morning, a friend shared an article with me, and several others, from Christianity Today. It was a recent Jennifer Knapp (a contemporary Christian music artist) interview in which she defends her homosexual life style. She stated that she is not obligated to keep the Law because she, or anyone else, is unable to anyway. She (according to her) is only obligated to keep the greatest commandment of loving thy neighbor. Here is what she said:
‘But I’ve always struggled as a Christian with various forms of external evidence that we are obligated to show that we are Christians. I’ve found no law that commands me in any way other than to love my neighbor as myself, and that love is the greatest commandment. At a certain point I find myself so handcuffed in my own faith by trying to get it right—to try and look like a Christian, to try to do the things that Christians should do, to be all of these things externally—to fake it until I get myself all handcuffed and tied up in knots as to what I was supposed to be doing there in the first place. If God expects me, in order to be a Christian, to be able to theologically justify every move that I make, I’m sorry. I’m going to be a miserable failure.'”
She further poo-poos the law with this statement:
“…what most people refer to as the ‘clobber verses’ to refer to this loving relationship as an abomination, while they’re eating shellfish and wearing clothes of five different fabrics.”
Bottom line: most evangelicals see New Covenant Theology as a trivial disagreement regarding semantics. That’s hardly the case. Knapp’s lesbianism is just a symptom—the root cause is what needs to be destroyed: New Covenant Theology.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments