Paul's Passing Thoughts

Gospel Sanctification Counseling: Part 2

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 23, 2010

“By ‘walking in the Spirit,’ Baldwin means walking in the gospel. The prior means to walk according to scriptural truth while the latter means to understand the gospel more deeply, resulting in Jesus obeying for us.”

See full article here: http://goo.gl/Hli7

What Does Gospel Sanctification “Look Like” in Counseling?

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 21, 2010

So, in regard to those who propagate Gospel Sanctification, how do they counsel? Well, I don’t think anything presents a better “word picture” (quotations hereafter not necessarily from Baldwin’s article) than Bill Baldwin’s piece written in 1996. By the way, I have begun this post with some illustrative Gospel Sanctification lingo which replaces as many verbs with nouns as possible for fear that counselees will get the idea that they should actually do something about their problem. “How,” or “do” is always replaced with what we see Jesus doing instead of us. Hence, “what does that look like?” And, we don’t instruct, we “make word pictures.” I have received feedback from one counselee who informed me that he was counseled by “visual diagrams” of his life drawn by the counselor. And the counselor wasn’t a New Age fruit ball, he is a certified biblical counselor and on the staff of a training center.

In the following article written by Baldwin, look for the following Gospel Sanctification tenets:

1. Sanctification is Justification (salvation / gospel) continually reapplied to life. Instruction is out, “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday” is in.

2. The role of the Law is exactly the same in sanctification as it is in justification. Hence, GS counselors don’t use the Law (God’s word) for instruction, but rather use it as a school master to continually lead the counselee back to Christ because we are unable to keep the Law, Christ must obey for us. Therefore, the sole purpose of Scripture is to “show forth more Jesus,” not anything Jesus would instruct us to do.

3. Look for the dissing of enablement, or the idea that God enables us to obey. Gospel Sanctification rejects this idea.

4. Note the use of the Law to supposedly drive the counselee (Christian) to the conclusion that he/she can’t keep the Law. This is a favorite technique used by GS counselors, especially in church discipline situations (which Baldwin does not address, but is applicable to points I would like to make). GS church discipline (“redemptive church discipline”) combines church discipline with counseling and primarily seeks to teach the subject to be “gospel driven,” seeing the actual purpose for the church discipline as being beside the point. The counseling will move closer and closer to excommunication as the counselee continues to supposedly “cling to the Law.” What the counselor will do is demand that the counselee obey a long list of stringent imperatives, and as the counselee fails, he/she is moved to the next step of church discipline (and closer to excommunication). This is designed to drive the counselee to “despair,” especially as he/she sees excommunication looming on the horizon. The counselor will then show them the “new way” of living by the gospel. I have seen this mode of operation practiced by counselors firsthand.

5. Note that biblical imperatives are not for us to obey, but rather a “fruit catalog” to show us whether it is Jesus performing the works or us trying to do it in our “own efforts.”

6. Notice John Piper’s Christian Hedonism; when Jesus is obeying for us, we will always obey without hesitation and full of joy. When our obedience is joyless and grudging, we are obeying by “our own efforts.”

One last note before I present the article. GS proponents hate this article because Baldwin is completely forthright regarding how GS applies to counseling. Without further ado, here is the article:

Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel
by Bill Baldwin 8-2-96


Counselling must stimulate faith so that behavior flows from a redeemed heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, people make this reply to that statement: “We’re presupposing faith, and a regenerate heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible for the counselee to benefit from counselling without these things.” And we end up frustrated. They are frustrated because they think I’m accusing them of not doing everything at once. After all, there are good books already available on faith and the heart (the Puritans rambled on forever on that one) and the Holy Spirit. Now we need a book on counseling and if we repeat all the previous work we’ll be duplicating the efforts of others and getting nowhere. And I’m frustrated because I don’t believe my point has been understood.

Let me make that point briefly and then expound on it. It is possible to have a regenerate heart of faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to produce actions that do not proceed therefrom. We do it every day. It is called sin. It is therefore essential that the counselor evoke the faith, stimulate the heart, and teach the counselee thereby to desire and receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Counselling cannot be about anything if it is not about faith and the heart and the Spirit of God.

Here is that same response in a longer form:

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. 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.

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 held out in Scripture.

The human mind, observed Calvin, is an idol factory. And our favorite idol stares back at us from the mirror each morning. When we are told to change our behavior, that idol is our first, most natural, and often unconscious recourse. The way of the gospel is strange, uncertain, and involved. Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.

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. The majority of my life is spent in self-idolatry. Again and again I find myself feeling and acting as though I am my own, as though I have the power to do what I choose to, as though I live and move and have my being within myself rather than in God through Christ. I say, “Tomorrow, I will do such and such” without a hint of “Lord willing” in my mind. Unconsciously I have stopped relying on another for everything I do. I have left the way of faith and any other way is sin.

Am I so sinful then? Indeed, in my flesh — utterly sinful. But I have been called to walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Not by works but by faith. Have I then made so little progress in walking in the Spirit that, every time I relax my vigilance I begin to walk in the flesh? Every time my renewed mind falls asleep it wakes to find me in sin? Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death? I praise God and cling to Christ for in Christ even now I have no condemnation, and in that sweet assurance I look forward to the resurrection of this body, gloriously transformed at last to Christlike perfection.

Meanwhile I wrestle with temptation; I fall into sin but am not overcome. He who died for me now restores me and sets me on the path of life — Christ, the Way — again.

What do I learn about counselling from these truths? Simply this: When a counselee comes to me with a problem of sin, he has been catering to his flesh and — if he has tried to combat the sin at all — has been combatting the sin in the strength of his flesh. Hence his failure and his need. If I counsel such a man by giving him “practical” steps to change his behavior, he will certainly attempt those steps in the strength of his own flesh. He has already demonstrated that this is the usual way he deals with this area of his life — at least lately. Will he change now?

We cannot, we must not, “presuppose” the presence of faith and a regenerate heart and the Holy Spirit. What if you were a farmer contemplating a tree that bears little fruit, and much of it bad? Would you say, “I assume the roots are fine and I assume the soil’s good and I assume it’s getting enough water” and look for the problem elsewhere? The condition of the fruit tells you you must examine the roots and the soil. So here. A counselee bearing bad fruit in a certain area must be brought back to the root of Christ and the soil of the gospel and the rain of grace. We do not assume the presence of Christ, we drive the counselee to Christ by the law. We do not assume the presence of faith (for faith is either absent of weak); we stimulate faith by the gospel. We do not assume the presence of love for God and neighbor, we evoke that love by telling him of God’s love for him — not to guilt trip him into obedience but that his heart may burst with joy and a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to love with the love of Christ.

But what if the gospel doesn’t work? We expound the gospel but it fails to motivate and empower the counselee to love and good deeds? The question seems despairing if not outright blasphemous. For when we speak of the gospel, we speak of the redeeming work of Christ in his incarnation, perfect life, atoning death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of power whence he sends forth the Holy Spirit to equip us for every good work. If that “doesn’t work” we have no hope.

But the question is legitimate. What if the gospel does not reignite a spark of faith in the counselee so that he forsakes his sin, clings to Christ, stands in awe of his salvation, and goes forth to love and serve the Lord? What if the gospel doesn’t work? Then take him to the law.

Let me be completely clear. I do not say “take him to the law” so that the law may motivate him to do what is right. The law cannot. It was not created for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose without producing pharisees and Judaizers. We must not cause the counselee to say, “The gospel wholly failed to motivate me to good works; but now that I see that God commands good works, I know that I must do them. And if I have no desire for good works, I will do them out of sheer, teeth-gritting obedience because God requires it of me.” Such obedience is wholly unacceptable to God. We must actively discourage the counselee from such thinking.

The counselor errs grossly if he uses the commands of God to motivate his counselee to an obedience born of the sheer force of his will.

A second error is like it but more subtle. The counselor may reason that the proper purpose of the law is to drive a man to Christ, but he turns Christ into a gimmick, a means by which the counselee may be enabled better to keep the law. The counselor has not fully understood the law and its demands and so the counselee misunderstands as well. The counselee hears the law and says “Yes, I want to do those things and I am sorry I haven’t been. Who will enable me to do them properly?” Such a man does not yet understand his own depravity. He desires merely to be enabled to keep the law rather than begging that the law might be kept and forgiveness obtained on his behalf. He asks “Where will I find the strength to keep the law?” rather than “Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death!” This man must be pried from the false Christ to which he clings and held closer to the fires of the law until he cries out, “I cannot keep it! Someone else must do it for me!”

This is as true in sanctification as in justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Christ. So are we sanctified. The law that first drove us to Christ again and again drives us back to him for repeated applications of his forgiveness and his righteousness.

The law must never drive us to desire to keep the law but that we should be freed from its shackles of condemnation. When we have been driven to Christ, when we have drunk deep of his salvation, our freedom from the law’s loud thunder, the glories that are laid up for us in heaven and in which we even now participate by faith. . . then we shall walk forth in newness of life. If we abide in Christ we will bear much fruit. We labor with counselees long and hard that they should walk by the Spirit. For we know that when they walk by the Spirit they will not carry out the desires of the flesh.

The law, stripped of its condemnation, will then describe the content of our behavior. And when we have questions in that regard as we walk by the Spirit, we may consult God’s standards to make sure that the new obedience we are gratefully bringing forth is not of our own devising.

But this is not the hardest or the most necessary part of counseling. Driving them to Christ by the law and teaching them to cling to Christ by faith must occupy most of our time. The nitty gritty “practical” concerns will largely take care of themselves if only we stick to this method.

Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying the law isn’t useful as a pattern of the good works that flow from sanctification. It is. But that is not the use that Paul or the rest of Scripture harps on over and over. 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. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.

What if a man preaches the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and reduces Christ as a means to producing that pattern? What will result? Nothing or worse than nothing.

Hold fast the head and the body will move. Abide in Christ and the fruit will come.

Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on October 1, 2010

As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.

Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW

Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).

Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.

I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ

paul

Ted Black: “Covenantal Historical” is a Much Better Argument Than Redemptive Historical

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on September 6, 2010

As previously discussed on this blog, New Covenant Theology, Heart Theology, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Christian Hedonism are the four pillars of the antinomian doctrine sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. This doctrine is gaining rapid, widespread acceptance among evangelicals, and is so subtle that many teachers propagate its elements unawares.

New Covenant Theology argues that the new covenant replaced the Law with a new “higher Law of love” (or other such references like “higher law of Christ”). Heart Theology is the practical application of Gospel Sanctification’s narrow role in regard to our participation in the sanctification process. Christian Hedonism attempts to explain how Gospel Sanctification is experienced. But Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics is an interpretive prism that makes Gospel Sanctification plausible.

Gospel Sanctification, in a nutshell, synthesizes justification with sanctification and extrapolates the same means of monergistic justification into sanctification, reducing the role of the believer in sanctification to almost nothing, except for the same role we would have in justification. Heart Theology then attempts to answer the question: “So what are believers supposed to do in the sanctification process?” But all in all, the four pillars work together to eliminate an upholding of the Law *by believers* in the sanctification process.

Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics was developed by Geerhardus Vos and coined “Biblical Theology” sometime between 1894 and 1932 while he was a professor at Princeton. Most of what I have learned about this hermeneutic is from Ted Black’s “The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos: an Analysis, Critique, and Reconstruction.” Black wrote the paper as a requirement for a project while at Covenant College located in Georgia. Two things should bring Vos’s approach into immediate suspicion: First, the complexity of it. Blacks Critique, though a masterpiece, is 150 pages of mind-numbing theology. Certainly, especially when one considers the Sermon on the Mount, the expectation of such a complex prerequisite to understanding God’s word does not seem likely. Secondly, it’s new, with similar theories nowhere to be found before the eighteenth century.

As I said, this theory of interpretation is extremely complex, but it primarily teaches that the Bible is a historical account of redemption. Hence, the name: “Redemptive Historical.” It goes without saying that not many Christians would argue with that, but what they don’t understand is that this theory of interpretation teaches that the Bible is exclusively a redemptive narrative concerning the works of Christ and nothing else. Therefore, as one example, what seems to be commands directed towards us in the Bible can now become commands that God knows we cannot obey with the intention of driving us to the one who fulfilled the Law on our behalf: Christ. In other words, when you look at Scripture through a Christocentric prism, the purpose of commands are to drive us to the knowledge that we are unable to uphold the Law, as apposed to the idea that obedience is our part in a covenant between us and God (but as a way of loving God and submitting to the Lordship of Christ, not as works for salvation) So then, when Paul the apostle referred to the Law as a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ, this can also apply to sanctification as well (supposedly).

This now sets the table for Black’s contention. He proposes on pages 53-62 of the above cited paper that covenants are a much more pronounced theme in the Scriptures than the works of Christ. He does this in a string of brilliant arguments, but I will only enunciate the ones I can best get my mind around. On page 59, he says the following: “As I argued above, the particular purpose of Gen. 1-2 is not redemptive, but covenantal—its purpose is the presentation of the covenant.” This brings to my mind (and I will use it to make my first point) the assertion by John Piper in his message at the the 2010 T4G conference that the theme of the gospels is redemptive because of how each gospel ends. This is also a continuing mantra heard among proponents of GS, that the end determines the theme. No wonder, because at the beginning of the Bible you have God as creator, and the God who makes a covenant with man, not redemption. Also, let me add that in a grand display of weak discernment in our time, nobody at the T4G blinked at what Piper said, regardless of the fact that the gospels do not even end with redemption as well, but rather Christ announcing that He had been given all authority by the Father and His mandate for the church. In fact, the Bible as a whole doesn’t even end with redemption, but rather the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth and the apparent restoration of God’s covenant with man.

Secondly, Black makes the point that the Old and New Testaments are structured / organized around the covenants. Each phase of Biblical history begins or encompasses a covenant. Also, he mentions the progressive nature of the Abrahamic covenant from Genesis 12 to the end of the Bible. When you follow Blacks reasoning as he unfolds his thesis in detail, you begin to see the dominant theme of God’s covenants with man throughout Scripture.

Thirdly, Black makes the point on page 57 that viewing covenants as a major theme in the Bible presents the Trinity in a more balanced, and biblical light: “Further, it appears that Scripture is not centered around Christ but rather around the Triune God, including Christ.” The propensity to present unbalanced views of the Trinity by GS proponents is an ongoing concern of great import. Obviously, if the Bible is primarily about the redemptive works of Christ, rather than His part in effecting the covenants between God and man, this is bound to happen, and for the worse. Black says the following on page 60: “The clear implication of this is that redemption, although a key theme of Scripture, and the distinguishing characteristic of any and all covenants of grace, is not the primary element of our present covenant in either its historical or inscripturated presentation, and neither was it primary in the past.”

But more importantly, Black, unlike proponents of GS, is suggesting covenants as a primary theme, not a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. I think he says the following on page 61 in sarcasm: “As such, and in different terms, we should understand that Scripture is not first and foremost based on the ‘history of redemption,’ but on the ‘history of the covenant’ I propose therefore, that we do not refer to our method of interpreting Scripture as ‘Redemptive Historical,’ but rather ‘Covenantal Historical.’”

By any measure, GS has a weak argument in regard to redemption being the *only* major theme of Scripture, and a far lesser argument for it being a single prism in which to interpret all of Scripture. Not only that, its unreasonably complex, and like its illegitimate child, NCT, which is thought by some to be only thirty years old, its way too new, implying that God’s children have been without a sufficient hermeneutic for 1900 years.

paul

Jason Gray’s Anthem for Chan’s “Crazy Love”

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 30, 2010

“This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ ‘sweety-pie’? Or how about, ‘honey-bunch’?”

I wrote a review the other day on Francis Chan’s book, “Crazy Love.” In the review I state my case concerning the book’s overall antinomian theme. Basically, Chan attempts to make the same case echoed by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change”; namely, that a relationship with Christ isn’t about biblical imperatives being applied to life, but rather a relationship with Him based on “intimate” knowledge derived from creation and seeing Jesus in every verse of the Bible. After all, according to Tripp, “Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept.” This also apes the Postmodern notion that the Bible is a grand narrative and not a book of propositional truths. Supposedly, this deeper knowledge then leads to increased faith, which allows the Holy Spirit to do everything for us. John Piper calls this “beholding as a way of becoming.”

As I also stated, Chan’s book synthesizes Justification and sanctification, narrowing our role in the sanctification process to little more than faith only. Since our limited role in sanctification needs to be embellished, one of the weird concepts that has emerged from this contemporary antinomian doctrine is the idea that our relationship with Christ should be an intimate love affair, resulting in a mushy exuberance of love towards Christ and others. Hence, Chan’s book is replete with what I called “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology.

Well, just this morning I was coming home from being kept out too late by my girlfriend (this comment is just a test to see if she reads my articles; that’s my story and I’m sticking to it), and thinking to myself: “did I go too far in the article?” I kid you not, at that moment, a song by Jason Gray came on the radio entitled “More Like Falling in Love.” The words blew me away; the song is a perfect anthem for Chan’s book. When I got home, I googled the song and found the lyrics on a post by a girl named Christy ( http://community.livejournal.com/ljchristians/2504072.html). In a shocking display of discernment, she said the following in regard to the song: “….when I heard this new song, something gnawed at me. Perhaps I was being cynical, but I felt like the lyrics were emphasizing an antinomian “Jesus is my adorable boyfriend!” (By the way, I was in a church this morning where a praise song referred to Christ as the “Darling” of heaven). Christy then posted the lyrics:


“More Like Falling in Love” lyrics by Jason Gray

Oooo
Give me rules, I will break them
Show me lines, I will cross them
I need more than a truth to believe
I need a truth that lives, moves, and breathes
To sweep me off my feet

Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love

Give me words, I’ll misuse them
Obligations, I’ll missplace them
Cuz all religion ever made of me
Was just a sinner with a stone tied to my feet
It never set me free

Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling
Its like I’m falling in love

Love, Love
Deeper and deeper
It was love that made me a believer
In more than a name, a faith, a creed
Falling in love with Jesus brought the change in me

Its gotta be
More like falling in love
Than something to believe in
More like losing my heart
Than giving my allegiance
Caught up, called out
Come take a look at me now
Its like I’m falling, Ohhhh
Its like I’m falling in love
I’m falling in love

Hey Christy: “ya think?” Lately, this contemporary antinomian doctrine sometimes known as “Gospel Sanctification” is the gift that just keeps on giving; this has to be the easiest post I have ever done on the subject. This half gospel that excludes Christ as Lord also begs the question: when we get to heaven, can we call Christ “sweety-pie”? Or how about, “honey-bunch”?