Key to understanding Lame Evangelism is Matthew 28:18-20
Last week, my evangelist son-in-law stated it again in his going back to PR presentation: Christians could seem to care less about evangelism. Others would say there is no “seem[ingly]” about it; in fact, we don’t. I believe the key to understanding this reality (and the fix) is in one of the most noted evangelism verses in the Bible, Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”
Let’s look at this text in order. First, Christians these days are focused on “our identity in Christ.” This comes from postmodern concepts which stress the supposed importance of “knowing our identity.” Only problem is, in attempting to do that, we must first define who we think Christ is. Well, in the Holy Spirit’s evangelism verse, He speaks of Christ’s identity, not ours: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And this must be a very important element because He immediately follows this statement with: “Therefore.” Christ has been given ALL authority in HEAVEN and EARTH. He is the absolute potentate of the universe and most certainly the absolute dictator-elect of planet Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That means He has authority, He is an authoritative God.
However, in our church culture, He is anything but that. He is our intimate, lovable boyfriend. As the number one contemporary Christian song of our time states it- it can’t be about authority, it has to be “more like falling in love.” And have you heard? John Piper says Christ is “the happy God” and primarily sees the world through “the lens of His happiness.”Also, it really doesn’t matter what our King says, no, but rather, “it’s who He is as a PERSON.” The thesis of one of the most popular Christian books of our time (“Crazy Love” by Francis Chan) propagates the idea that a real relationship with Christ is intrinsically tied to discovering who He is as a real person while being free from concern about anything Christ would command. You know, the kind of things Lord’s do; commandments and stuff like that. So obviously, when we are presenting Christ to the world, personal and cultural preferences may take precedent over anything in Scripture that may be perceived as our King’s mandate(s). Christ as Savior and happy boyfriend – Lord is optional.
This is the premise of all of my points here: The Holy Spirit empowers evangelism. My first point is; He won’t empower people who don’t even know who Christ is and how to act like it. Christ said that evangelism must be according to His AUTHORITY. No authority, no evangelism.
Secondly, our church culture cannot get it into their heads that Christ doesn’t want to save people, He wants to “make disciples.” To say that the “gospel“ has suffocated discipleship is an extreme understatement. Christ is looking for able followers / worshipers, not mere converts. The fact that Christians do not know how to take “the mind of Christ”(1Cor 2:16) and apply it to their lives is evident by the fact that they go to “experts” for their problems. Fact of the matter is, most Christians will tune into Oprah Winfrey for answers to life’s tough questions before they will go to their pastor, and for good reason, the pastor doesn’t have the answers and everybody knows it. If you want to know how many stones David picked up out of the brook (and the name of the brook) to slay Goliath, you go to your pastor. If you need answers to life’s difficult questions, you go to a spawn of Sigmund Freud. The word is out, Dr. Phil can save a marriage before most pastors will even get over the initial shock (or disdain) that their parishioner would even ask them how to do such a thing.
Furthermore, the world knows something that the church doesn’t know. Most people change via problems; and what they discover about those problems that come into their lives. “Oprah” is the most popular TV show of all human history, and its theme is life, and the problems thereof. It’s a how to show. Get over it; God is a problem centered counselor. (Adam, Cain, Job, etc., etc., etc., etc.,). Hence, a church I used to go to had twelve converts in one year through their biblical counseling program (back when they knew how). Keep in mind: evangelism is problem centered counseling that the whole world needs. Their lost – that’s a problem, and your the counselor (or should be) that has God’s solution to the problem.
In the Old Testament, two lepers who were thrown out of Jerusalem went back to the besieged city to inform them that they had discovered life-saving provisions. That’s what you do when you have information that can save people’s lives; you go and tell. Christians today have no motivation to tell because they really don’t see where the deeper knowledge of God makes a difference in their own lives. Get ’em saved and then send them to Oprah? Christians will find better things to do while pretending that being a Christian is really different.
That was the problem with the first gospel wave from about 1950 to 1980. “Bag ’em and tag ’em, then send ’em to Oprah. The second gospel wave (1980 to present) says: “The same gospel that saved you, also disciples (sanctifies) you.” Hence, we are all leaving church with the gospel coming out of our ears! The mantra of the second gospel wave says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Other spiritual brainiacs claim: “We never leave the gospel and supposedly move on to deeper / other things.” But this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 6:1 which states: “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation….” In fact, throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is spoken of being a “foundation” that we build on (1Cor 3:10-15 for example). The “gospel” is killing evangelism because immature Christians make lousy evangelist. In fact, the Holy Spirit will not use them.
Thirdly, Christ is not looking for lousy worshipers. He is looking for disciples who learn “all that I have commanded” (ie., about ALL areas of life). Consider the popular “worship” song, “It’s All About You” [Christ]. The following was suggested to me: “That’s an awesome worship song because worship is all about Christ.” My response: “NO it isn’t! Worship is not all about Christ. Again, Christ must, for lack of a better term, be “allowed” to TELL US who He is and what He wants! Christ said we must worship “in spirit and in truth.” Worship is far more than raising our hands in church and using a song to focus on the “person” of Christ. Worship is how we talk to our wife. Worship is what kind of job we do at work. The better the disciple, the better the worship, because the definition of a disciple is “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” God is looking for true worshipers, and true worship is according to truth (John 4:23).
If God is not looking for lousy worshipers, neither is the Holy Spirit. A church that has a heavy focus on discipleship will find much cooperation and empowerment from the Spirit.
paul
Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification: If it’s Both/and, He Doesn’t Say
I just finished Phillip Cary’s “Good News for Anxious Christians.” The book concerns what he calls, throughout the book, “the new evangelical theology.” According to Cary, this new theology creates unnecessary anxiety in and among Christians. He then cites ten “practical” things that the new evangelical theology says we should do that causes the anxiety, and why we really don’t need to do them, and thus eliminating the unnecessary angst. He also noted that this new theology damages Christians psychologically, emotionally, morally, and spiritually.
The book came to my attention when it was suggested to me that it was an apology against Gospel Sanctification. But when I did some research in regard to the author, it became apparent that he is an advocate of GS. This incited the following thought on my part: “Are there two GS camps?” So, when I encountered the following statement in the beginning of the book, I wasn’t surprised:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I posted a short article that focused on the one statement only: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/%E2%80%9Cthats-not-true%E2%80%9D-phillip-carys-gospel-sanctification-statement/
Nevertheless, other statements in the book seemed to be a direct protest against GS elements, though Cary does not specifically name what the “new evangelical theology” (hereafter “TNET”) is. The book was based on feedback he gets from his college students, so he is seeing the ground level effect of TNET firsthand. My strong suspicion is – he is seeing a variety unbiblical soundbites that Christians live by, but no doubt, some of them are spawns of the GS doctrine. So, what’s going on here?
I will summarize chapters in the book that clearly refute the GS doctrine, and chapters that hold the GS line, and then I will state my conclusions. As an aside, let me say that I believe chapter one addresses post-Christian thought (God speaks to us in small, still voices instead of Scripture, and we have to sort it out. Also see chapter 10), and not Gospel Sanctification. First, chapter three is a devastating argument against the GS tenets of Christ obeying for us, “yielding,” and the supposed evil of “trying to obey God by our own efforts.” It was also very confirming to hear from a well noted Christian thinker concerning the impact that this doctrine is having on people in real life. I was in a church that taught the GS doctrine, and Cary’s argumentative question on page 39 echoes the EXACT same question I often asked the leaders of that church: “…how do you know if you’re really letting God do it – or are you still just trying to do it in your own strength?” Cary then noted that the necessity of such a question is a “sign that something’s wrong.” However, before I continue, though they did not want to answer the question to me at the time, the answer is: when Christ is obeying for us, our response will be a “mere natural flow accompanied by overflowing joy” (ie., John Piper’s Christian Hedonism). They knew a truthful answer in accordance with the doctrine would have presented another caveat for debate / consideration.
Cary makes many powerful arguments against this notion in chapter three, including the following:
“At its sickest, the new evangelical theology is an attempt to deny the reality of God’s creation… [when God created the garden and put Adam there to maintain it – it was really Adam doing the work, not God] That’s what really happens when you get really serious about saying, ‘it wasn’t me; it was all God.’ This is a misunderstanding at best, a denial of the doctrine of creation at worst” (page 54).
Also, chapter three concludes with an orthodox statement that clearly propagates synergistic sanctification.
Throughout the book, Cary accuses TNET of implementing “either/or” when “both/and” should be applied. As one needs to note from our preceding consideration, to “obey in our own strength” implies that either your doing it, or God is, so if your at work, God isn’t. Cary states it this way:
“…in fact you’re always the one who’s doing it. The inner acts of your heart are always your own, even when they’re a result of God working in you.”
Cary then applies this to another one of his contentions in chapter five; specifically, the “either/or” application to love and duty (classic John Piper), or the same application to love and motives (classic Francis Chan). It is more than fair to say that Cary’s contention on page 86 could apply directly to John Piper’s Christian Hedonism:
“An especially twisted way of misdirecting our attention is to preach that we should do good things out of love, not duty. It’s perverse, in the first place, because people who genuinely love their neighbors are eager to do their duty – to keep their promises and obligations, for example – since this binds them to their neighbor’s and is therefore one of the most important ways of seeking their neighbor’s good. So people who love are people who do their duty. It’s clearly a both/and, not an either/or. And they’re strongly motivated to do their duty, rather than being motivated by the desire to be such loving people. That desire would twist their motivation back toward themselves – making it a concern for their own self-image, rather than for their neighbor’s good.”
Exactly. Love seeks the “good” or what’s best for our neighbor, regardless of how we feel about whatever we have to do to accomplish that. Also, as Cary notes, a concern about how we feel when we love makes it about us and introspection concerning our motives, not love. If Piper hears about this line of thought, he will have to take another sabbatical.
Chapters six and seven are a spot-on, biblical view of the relationship between feelings, love, and obedience. However, I will say that although the thoughts are very biblical, it’s peculiar that very few Scripture verses are cited in comparison to the volume of information, and the few verses that are cited do not reference or compliment any of the strong points. It is more than fair to say that this chapter is abundant fodder for a treatise against Christian Hedonism, but I have no idea whether that tenet of GS is what Cary would consider part of TNET. And before I get too far ahead, I might mention that chapter four strongly emphasizes the application of biblical imperatives to life, and the importance of “finding wisdom, and what is good, in the commandments of God” [paraphrase].
With that said, chapters nine and ten are right out of the Gospel Sanctification play-book, complete with a purely redemptive-historical viewpoint of the Scriptures and the dissing of practical application (but chapter seven is the epitome of practical application!). Page 167 seems to bolster the GS tenet of the total depravity of the saints, and also adding the following on page 168:
“On the other hand, if you want to be merciful and give people good news [ie., the gospel], you have to start by teaching them how to be sinners.”
Yikes! Do we really want our preaching to focus on getting Christians to see themselves as “sinners”!? Just about everywhere you poke chapters nine and ten, you get sanctification as justification:
“There’s no escaping the trap [of practical application] unless you believe that Christ came to save sinners and that includes you.”
Let me pause here and clarify something; when evangelicals talk about practical application, they are referring to “hear[ing] these words of mine and putting them into practice” (Matthew 7:24).
Chapter nine is also heavy on the whole GS Bible as gospel narrative motif in which our goal is to “put ourselves in the narrative” rather than to “take something out” for practical application (see this post:
Lastly, though Cary emphasizes synergistic sanctification throughout the book, he also advocates the idea that the Scriptures are “the gospel” and “the gospel is not about what we do, but about what Christ does.” So in regard to the Scriptures and the use thereof, this seems to be the “either/or” approach that he disses elsewhere. There is also a very strong flavor of Michael Horton’s concept of, “trying to represent Christ with good behavior is an attempt to be the gospel rather than presenting the gospel.”
There is simply no doubt: Cary is presenting two distinct, opposing views in the same book with no logical conclusions connecting the two. Is it “both/and,” or “either/or”? He doesn’t say. However, his GS model, unlike the other camp, would NOT include New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, monergistic sanctification as the only true gospel (he just thinks it’s serious error), and Heart Theology (Cary believes change is effected by outside influences as well as inside influences). But, like the other camp, it would include the total depravity of the saints, and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic (all Scripture is about the gospel only). Other elements are inconclusive because of the contradictory concepts presented in the book (for instance, is the end-game of his model antinomianism? And, are saints totally depraved and spiritually dead, or just totally depraved?). Again, several elements are inconclusive because of the discontinuity between ideas in the book.
I will conclude by taking a stab at this. I think Cary is orthodox in most of his views concerning sanctification and offers brilliant insight into the subject as well. In fact, I will be using a lot of his material from this book at a men’s fellowship this month. But, is this a case in which Cary is enamored by the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic and is just cramming it in to his perspective come heck or high water? It reminds me of watching football with Susan. She just can’t understand those runs where the running back goes crashing into the line for zero gain: “Why do they do that?! Run around them! That’s stupid! Well, Phillip Cary is far from being stupid, of course, but there is simply no connection of thought between his contradictory positions, which is strange. It seems like it would be easy enough to articulate a model that would be “both/and” like love and duty are both/and.
It would be an erroneous model, but he could have at least done that.
paul
“Slave”: Bad Company Corrupts Good Theology
For many years John MacArthur’s teachings from the Bible have had a tremendous impact on my life. I always received his teachings as well balanced between showing God’s greatness and sovereignty, imparting encouragement, and teaching practical application. He also did a great job of relating how the Christian walk is experienced in real life. Certainly, I have never deemed his teachings as “not vertical enough.” But trust me, his latest book, “Slave” is plenty vertical. In recent years, I have noticed a considerable decrease of practical application in MacArthur’s teachings, and “Slave” is no exception.
The back cover states the following by way of introduction: “A cover-up of biblical proportions. Centuries ago, English translators perpetrated a fraud in the New Testament, and it’s been purposely hidden and covered up ever since. Your own Bible is probably included in the cover-up!
In this book, John MacArthur unveils the essential and clarifying revelation that may be keeping you from a fulfilling-and correct-relationship with God. It’s powerful. It’s controversial. And with new eyes you’ll see the riches of your salvation in a radically new way.
What does it mean to be a Christian the way Jesus defined it? MacArthur says it all boils down to one word: SLAVE.”
In fact, the book is an awesome resource, probably THE resource, in showing the true significance, as stated in the Bible, regarding our slave / Lord relationship with Christ. MacArthur begins by giving a detailed historical account of how “bond slave” was re-translated as “[hired] servant” with much lighter implications for seeing our true relationship with the Savior. MacArthur then proceeds to to give an in-depth historical account of slavery during biblical times and how the prophets, the apostles, and Christ used that contemporary reality to illustrate truth about redemption and our relationship with the lord.
As an aside, if you have ever wrestled with the question of ecclesiastical authority verses the authority of Scripture, note pages 60-68. Good stuff, and it will put that question to bed.
A huuuuuuge portion of the book is about God’s sovereignty in justification and sanctification. Got any friends you want to convert to Calvinism? It is one of the most painstaking apologies for Calvinism that I have ever read.
So, after the excellent historical case and roughly 150 pages of monergism, MacArthur got into some practical application on page 183; slaves will be judged based on their performance at the judgment seat of Christ. A great motivation to partake in the “O” word. And then it happened; on page 186, he quotes none other than John Piper. As much as I love MacArthur, he just drives me nuts when he does that. Why? Well, a major theme throughout the book is the biblical concept of being set free from the slavery of sin and made free in slavery to Christ. Piper believes the exact opposite! Piper states the following in “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial”:
“Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).”
Notice Piper quotes Romans 6:17 to make his point about “our” nature and: “We” [are]. Romans 6:17 reads as follows:
“But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance.”
Piper uses the Romans passage, which is clearly in the past tense, to teach that Christians are still enslaved to sin. He routinely gets a pass on this sort of thing. Furthermore, Mac quotes Piper twice in the book (page 207 also) for good measure in his endeavor to heap creditability on Piper who also contradicts another major theme in the book; specifically, that we must accept the whole person of Christ which is Lord and Savior. Piper believes the following:
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
MacArthur also wrote a glowing forward in Piper’s book, “Desiring God” despite the fact that the book contains outrageous statements by Piper:
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
Hence, creepy similarities to Piper’s theology appear in “Slave,” especially Pipers belief that true Christian obedience is always experienced as an unhesitating, natural response accompanied by joy. Throughout the book, MacArthur describes Christian obedience as “pure delight” and “joy-filled.” On page 208, he describes our experience as slaves to Christ as “not partially sweet and partially sour, but totally sweet.” This, despite what the apostle John clearly experienced as recorded in Revelation. But regardless of the fact that there is nothing sweeter than being a slave of Christ, to suggest that our experience is never mixed with bitterness (taste, not attitude) is just plain nonsense. A believer who has lost an unbelieving relative or close friend would be an example. Also, even though I realize the importance of joy in the Christian life, I make this observation in “Another Gospel” (page 78):
“Only problem is, among many, is the eleventh chapter of Hebrews contradicts everything in Piper’s statement above. Hebrews 11 is one of the more extensive statements on saving faith in Holy writ. The Hebrew writer defines the faith of at least twenty believers in regard to the decisions they made and obedience. Joy or pleasure, even pleasure in God, is not named once as being an attribute of their faith. The only semblance of feelings or emotions mentioned is that of strife and fear of God more than man. The truth of Hebrews 11, as well as many other Scriptures, makes a mockery of Piper’s theory of Christian hedonism.”
paul
New Years Day 2011: The Second Coming of John Piper
On John Piper’s “Desiring God” website, he wrote the following on March 28, 2010:
“….the elders graciously approved on March 22 a leave of absence that will take me away from Bethlehem from May 1 through December 31, 2010.”
And in the same correspondence:
“The difference between this leave and the sabbatical I took four years ago is that I wrote a book on that sabbatical”
I have not read the book he mentions, but I have read the manuscript from the sermon he preached upon his first return on August 6, 2006 which summarizes the major premise of the book written while on his first sabbatical. The first sabbatical was ten weeks, and he took that sabbatical to document his fresh insights into the subject of how biblical imperatives relate to justification, and primarily from the four gospels. Much of this same thesis was reiterated in his message at the 2010 T4G conference. More on that later, and how it relates to the subject at hand.
Piper also wrote the following in the aforementioned post:
“I hope the Lord gives me at least five more years as the pastor for preaching and vision at Bethlehem.”
And, “Personally, I view these months as a kind of relaunch of what I hope will be the most humble, happy, fruitful five years of our 35 years at Bethlehem….”
Piper: a History of New Visions
It is well said that Piper is the elder in charge of “vision” at his church, for he has had several. In fact, one can only stand in amazement to see the pass he gets from the rest of the Evangelical world concerning very questionable events. His first epiphany that gave birth to Christian Hedonism, the doctrine that he is most noted for, is recounted by Piper himself as follows:
“Before I saw these things in the Bible, C. S. Lewis snagged me when I wasn’t looking. I was standing in Vroman’s Bookstore on Colorado Avenue in Pasadena, California, in the fall of 1968. I picked up a thin blue copy of Lewis’s book The Weight of Glory. The first page changed my life….Never in my life had I heard anyone say that the problem with the world was not the intensity of our pursuit of happiness, but the weakness of it. Everything in me shouted, Yes! That’s it!”
In Dr. Peter Masters’ critique of John Piper and his doctrine, he gives credit where credit is due, but his assessment is none-the-less, scathing:
“At times in his books Dr Piper wants us to see this as an old idea, but his claims are not convincing. It does tend to look no older than C S Lewis, (1) whose famous book, Weight of Glory, had an explosive influence on Dr Piper in his younger years….Dr Piper often quotes Jonathan Edwards, who said much about delighting in God and Christian joy. By reference to Jonathan Edwards, Dr Piper effectively says, ‘Look, this is as old as the hills. This is the way our forebears thought.’ Certainly Jonathan Edwards provides choice passages about delighting in God, as did the English Puritan writers, but at no time does he [Edwards] frame a system in which this becomes the key principle of Christian living. Joy in God always sits alongside other equal duties….Dr Piper really knows that he is promoting something novel. He even uses the term, ‘my vision’, and that is what it is, for however well intended, it is Dr Piper’s personal vision. He also calls it ‘my theology’” (“Christian Hedonism: Is it Right?” Sword & Trowel 2002, No. 3 by Peter Masters).
Piper’s Second Vision
Piper’s second vision further defined Christian Hedonism in his book, “The Pleasures of God.” This time, his epiphany came from reading a book by Henry Scougal. In the book “The Life of God in the Soul of Man,” Scougal suggested (in the book) that the excellency of a man’s soul is determined by what he loves. Piper then thought something like this: Hmmm, then could it be that the same is true about God? “Is it not also the case that the worth and excellency of God’s soul is measured by the object of his love?” (p.15, “The Pleasures of God”). Two pages later, Piper had talked himself into swallowing the light-bulb moment hook, line, and sinker. He then decided to take a four-day study leave from his church with a Bible and concordance to confirm this new idea. The following is what Piper said about “The Pleasures of God” on page 17:
“I regard this book as a vision of God through the lens of his happiness.”
The First Sabbatical
In the sermon that marked his first return, Piper said the following:
“Many of you know that I spent a large portion—at least 10 weeks—of the sabbatical immersed in the commands of Jesus, writing a book that is now titled What Jesus Demands from the World. “
Biblical imperatives / commands are a problem for the doctrine Piper advocates, but never mentions by name; specifically, New Calvinism, or Gospel Sanctification, or New Covenant Theology. Whatever you want to call it, it’s an antinomian doctrine. More on that later, but the primary goal of the first sabbatical was to form a treatise on the whole pesky idea that obedience serves a purpose in the sanctification process. Upon his first return, he emphasized the urgency of this new bent to his congregation:
“Bethlehem, this is serious. We are not justified by the righteousness that Christ works in us, but by the righteousness that Christ is for us. Would you receive this, and glory in this, and pray toward this, and stand for this? I summon everyone in the hearing of my voice: Give Jesus Christ his full glory—not half of it. Give him the glory, both as the one who is perfect righteousness for us—which we have by faith alone and the one who, on the basis of justification, works progressive righteousness in us. Don’t rob him of the glory of his role as your righteousness. He is your righteousness. And because he is your righteousness, he can, and will in time, make you righteous. Look to Christ alone, trust in Christ alone—not your righteousness—for your right standing in God’s court and your acceptance with him.”
I must admit, I have a morbid respect for Piper because of his ability as a slick word-crafter. You have to study long and hard to realize that the preceding statement is talking about the GS (Gospel Sanctification) tenet / element of “progressive sanctification” which is really justification extrapolated forward through the (normally understood as orthodox) sanctification process. The GS doctrine sees justification and sanctification as one and the same. Though the topic of his message was justification, if you note carefully, he was also talking about sanctification as if it is the same thing. As I said before, Piper reiterated this position at the 2010 T4G conference, and an excerpt from another post on this particular element (regarding what he said about it at the 2010 T4G) may be helpful:
“While his message was supposedly focused on justification, he makes the following statement in the same message:
‘All the good that God requires of the justified is the fruit of justification by faith alone, never the ground of justification. Let the battle of your life be there. The battle to believe. Not the battle to perform.’
Is that true? Should Christians focus solely on belief only? Isn’t there ever a ‘battle to perform’? According to Piper, and what can be clearly gleaned from this statement, no. Notice how sanctification is not mentioned in regard to what we should be doing now, or a ‘battle’ to please God with our lives. Regardless of the fact that he is speaking in the present tense, he only qualifies the ‘battle to perform’ in regard to justification. He says that everything God requires flows from the fruits of justification, and then we should only ‘battle to believe,’ not battle to perform. Read the statement very carefully as you must with this master word-crafter; if you make a battle to perform [effort in the sanctification process] one of your battles as a Christian, you are also making that the grounds of your justification!”
In other words: monergistic sanctification, and in the same way that salvation is monergistic. And, works in sanctification equals salvation by works; and therefore, the Law has the same role / significance in sanctification as it does in justification (Antinomianism. James Durham: “The antinomains make all sanctification to be justification”). That’s why Piper implored the congregation regarding the gravity of the message, because synergistic sanctification (normally understood as orthodox) is supposedly a false gospel, or works salvation.
Also note, per the GS doctrine, that justification is not seen as a one-time act by God, but ongoing: “And because he is your righteousness, he can, and will in time, make you righteous” Furthermore, it is clearly sanctification by faith alone, which orthodox Christians have never endorsed. Here is what JC Ryle said accordingly:
“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
In order to make this case, Piper emphasized, in the same message, that all of the Gospels (Mathew, Mark, Luke, John) need to be seen “in the shadow of the cross,” and therefore, the imperatives therein also. Paul David Tripp, an associate of John Piper, often states it this way: “Biblical commands must be seen in their gospel context.” The GS “gospel” that Tripp is referring to includes the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” This is the belief that Christ’s perfect obedience performed while He was on Earth was not only relevant regarding Him being a perfect sacrifice for sin, but that He obeyed perfectly to fulfill the Law (and therefore disposing of its usefulness), and to impute that obedience to us which also negates the relevance of the Law for New Covenant believers. In short, Christ obeys for us. Therefore, proponents of GS often say, “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” They also believe that commands in the Bible are only useful to be pondered as a way to “go deeper into the gospel” because they (commands) are indicative of what Christ has done for us – biblical commands are not instruction from God to be understood and executed by us. Supposedly. Here is how Piper verbalized it in the message we are discussing:
“Another way to say it is that the cross of Jesus, where he took our place and became a curse for us and bore our sins and completed his obedience, casts a long shadow back over every verse in the Gospels. Every verse is meant to be read under the shadow of what Jesus did for us on the cross. Or to put it still another way, the four gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—are meant to be read backward. Children, remember I said that and at lunch today say to your mommy and daddy, ‘Why did Pastor John say that we are supposed to read the Gospels backward?’ And don’t panic, mom and dad. Here’s the answer. Tell them, he meant that when you start reading one of the Gospels you already know how it ends—the death and resurrection of Jesus for our sins—and you should have that ending in mind with every verse that you read.”
Only problem is, not only is his hermeneutic ridiculous (the end always determines the meaning of every sentence in a text), that’s NOT how the Gospels end! Matthew and Mark end with Christ proclaiming His authority, and a mandate to the church to observe all that He commanded. In other words, the exact opposite of what Piper is saying. Luke ends with the ascension, and John ends with Christ giving Peter final instructions. It’s almost as if Piper thinks people are generally brain-dead. We also see the following in Piper’s nuanced statements: the GS tenet of Redemptive- Historical hermeneutics (every verse in the Bible is about Christ, the gospel, redemption, and justification).
Did Piper Put Himself Under “Redemptive Church Discipline”?
In his most recent sabbatical, Piper disclosed that he hadn’t committed any serious sin that would disqualify him from ministry (how would he know if every verse in the Bible is about the gospel?), but had observed many “species of pride” in his soul. Apparently, the purpose of the sabbatical is to eliminate these creatures, and undoubtedly through what GS proponents call “deep repentance” (another GS tenet). The elders also appointed an accountability team to assist him.
Many are not aware of what New Calvinist believe about church discipline. They don’t believe that church discipline is a four-step process to determine the need for exclusion because of serious sin. GS proponents believe that church discipline, or what they call “redemptive church discipline,” is a tool to fine-tune the saints. Think about it, the traditional view of church discipline requires the subject to respond to objective instruction in order to avoid consequences. This turns New Calvinism completely upside down. Therefore, redemptive church discipline brings salvation / justification principles to bear on the situation which includes meditation on the gospel and “deep repentance.” It’s a complex issue, and there is no room to address it here, but a detailed explanation of this unorthodox procedure can be found in my book, “Another Gospel.”
Piper’s Second Coming
Today is the last day of his sabbatical. If he comes back from this one without a new vision, that will be a first. This is what he wrote regarding this sabbatical:
“ In this leave, I intend to let go of all of it. No book-writing. No sermon preparation or preaching. No blogging. No Twitter. No articles. No reports. No papers. And no speaking engagements.”
Only problem is, reading books written by others, the source of his past epiphanies, is not on the list. God help us (that’s a real request). So, what will it be this time? Who knows other than God Himself, but just for the fun of it, I’m going to make a guess. I believe Piper will come out with a detailed promotion and defense of redemptive church discipline. There is very little doubt in my mind that this sabbatical has been some kind of spiritual expedition for the purpose of articulating something, and that is my best guess. Second to that, before he embarked on this sabbatical, he referenced Paul David Tripp’s view of the GS tenet of deep repentance (which Tripp articulates in the book, “How People Change”) in an interview with a Christian magazine. I surmise that his sabbatical was an expedition to define, by experience, one, or both of these GS tenets. I assume tomorrow, the first Sunday of his return, will also be his appearing before the fawning faithful to reveal what he experienced during his sabbatical.
Piper is a strong proponent of the GS doctrine though he avoids interpretive labels like the Bubonic Plague. Perhaps he will come out of the closet on Sunday. But I can’t help to take notice of when he is returning – the first Sunday of the new year, when Christians really ought to be focused on their own walk with God. And regarding this sabbatical preparing him for the final stretch of his ministry, which he hopes might be five years – I’m surprised he didn’t suggest three.
paul
So, When Did New Calvinism Hijack Westminster? And…
I own a couple of online bookstores and enjoy reading some of the older Christian books. As I was entering books the other day, I picked one up from the stack entitled “The Infallible Word” written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, the one in Philadelphia. The book is a real keeper; It is in very good condition, and is the third revision of a symposium on the doctrine of Scripture. It was written in 1946, and the third revision (the copy I have) was printed in 1967. The forward is written by Dr. M. Lloyd Jones. Apparently, the contributors are from the Westminster faculty of that time (1946) as follows: John Murray; Edward Young; N.B. Stonehouse; John Skelton; Paul Wooley; R.B. Kuiper; Cornelius Van Til.
As Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan has noted, New Calvinism’s claim of historical precedent is far from impressive. And as others have noted, New Covenant Theology (which is joined at the hip with New Calvinism) was probably conceived at Westminster around 1980. So, when I picked up the next data entry and realized what it was, my first thought was, “this should be interesting.” Yes, especially with Paul Wooley stating in the Preface: “It continues to be our conviction that this is the basic position of the divines who made up the Westminster Assembly which convened in 1643…”
There is no room here to state all of the glaring contradictions between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism provoked by the reading of this book, but I will rather focus on what New Calvinism and its tenets (NCT, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics) should stand on, or fall: its view of Scripture.
First, the faculty didn’t share New Calvinism’s Christocentric view of Scripture. Their view of Scripture was very similar to traditional Evangelicalism, which is disdained by proponents of New Calvinism. Before I continue, I might also add that Geerhardus Vos and his Biblical Theology is not once mentioned in the book, or if it is, I certainly missed it, and he (Vos) definitely appears nowhere in the index of names. Instead of “gospel” being used to refer to Scripture (actually, I remember “gospel” being used once, maybe twice, in the whole book), the term that all faculty members used throughout the book to describe Scripture, seemingly on every page, was “the objective divine authority.” Throughout the book, the emphasis was *objective authority* NOT *gospel narrative.* John Murray states the following on page 29:
“It is precisely in this estimation of the Scriptures and in such illusion to them, as not only prophetic of what took place in the fullness of time but also as having direct bearing upon the most practical and abiding of Christian duties, that the New Testament abounds.”
Got that? The Scriptures are not only about what took place in “the fullness of time” (ie., the gospel), but “also” have a “direct bearing” on practical Christian “duties.” To the New Calvinist, this statement is barley less than heresy. Furthermore, *obedience* to the *authority* of Scripture is a constant theme throughout the book. N.B. Stonehouse further elaborates on page 99:
“It is our conviction that the idea of canonicity has meaning and validity only if Christian theism, the theism of the Bible, is true. Implicit in the idea of a divinely authoritative Scripture is the thought of God as self-existent and self sufficient, the creator and ruler of the universe. His works necessarily constitute a disclosure of his mind and purpose.”
Not only does this make my prior point, but introduces another: this is a far cry from John Piper’s Christocentric assertion that God “entered history through the works of Christ.” No, redemption entered history as a disclosure of God’s mind and purpose. This leaves room for other things God may want to disclose about Himself, obviously. And this was also the position of the Westminster faculty. In fact, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not New Calvinism’s idea that all Scripture is Christicentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word “psalms”? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
Hence, in the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence,” as it is more than fair to say of the New Calvinist mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
Secondly, along the lines of Scripture, the faculty did not share the New Calvinist / NCT view that Christ came to abolish the Old Testament Law by fulfilling it, but rather fulfilled it to FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY. John Murray makes this clear on pages 20 and 21 while commenting on Matthew 5:17-19;
“ The word ‘destroy’ (kataluo) is particularly significant. It means to abrogate, to demolish, to disintegrate, to annul or, as J.A. Alexander points out, ‘the destruction of the whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.’ His emphatic denial of any such purpose in reference to either the law or the prophets means that the discharge of his messianic mission leaves the law and the prophets intact. He utters, however, not only this emphatic denial but also adds the positive purpose of his coming – he came to fulfill, to complete. And so his work with reference to both law and prophets is completory, not destructive. He who can speak in the immediately succeeding context with such solemn asseveration and imperious authority brings all that is involved in such asseveration and authority to bear upon the confirmation of the abiding validity, stability, and authority of both law and prophets. And not only so, but he also grounds his own mission and task upon such permanent validity, and defines his work in terms of fulfillment of all that the law and the prophets provided.”
Murray states here that Christ’s mission was grounded in the permanent authority of the law and the prophets. Could there be a more antithetical statement in regard to New Covenant Theology?
Lastly, Stonehouse makes it clear what the Westminster faculty believed in regard to a centrality of Scripture on page 107:
“ To put the matter in concrete and specific terms, Christianity began as a religion of a divine book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged a book as an objective expression of the divine mind and will. Were it not that so many modern writers have approached the study of the New Testament cannon with the assumption that Christianity is basically not a religion of authority but a religion of “the spirit,” it would hardly seem necessary to emphasize the point that the idea of an inscripturated canon, far from being uncongenial to Christianity, forms an integral element of the Christian faith from the beginning of its life.”
While this statement makes my aforementioned point, let me also ask: what is more indicative of New Calvinism than the claim that it promotes “the spirit” over the authority of Scripture? The Westminster faculty of that time even cautioned against the truth / tension of the illuminating Spirit being set against objective authority: “This doctrine of the inward witness of the Spirit does not sacrifice the objective authority of the Scriptures, as often maintained” (p.101).
Do I have to try to carry all of the water here? Somebody help me out. It seems that these guys (as I gather from my reading) were definitely Covenant theologians. But there is no way that the movers and shakers at the present-day Westminster Seminary are of Covenant Theology. If you believe that, I would like to tell that this book is personally autographed by Van Til with a gel pen, and it can be yours for a modest price of say, 200 bucs. You can’t separate New Calvinism from NCT / Gospel Sanctification, they are joined at the hip. What’s going on over there? It looks like a hijacking to me, and when did it happen? And how do these guys get away with pretending to be on the same par with Westminster tradition? I’m just asking.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments