Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
Per the Usual, You Always Learn Something When You Do Dr. J’s Homework
In a recent post (https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/i-always-do-dr-js-homework/), I comment on a post written by Jay Adams where he raises concerns about passive forms of sanctification running about in the church. He suggested that counselors have counselees make a list of all imperatives located in 1Corithians, and then ask themselves who the commands are directed to. Them? Or, (as he asked in a keynote address) the Holy Spirit? I just couldn’t help but to see the challenge as a homework assignment, and the results are documented in the above-mentioned post.
But as a former counselee under NANC counseling back when they were dealing with a full deck, I always learned from Dr. J’s homework that was part of the curriculum, and this assignment was certainly no exception. First of all, as would be necessary to state in the present climate, an examination of nouns, verbs, adjectives, ect., and how they relate to each other in 1Corintians would seem to indicate that all imperatives in the book are directed toward us. However, like those peasants that were “taught” by Jesus via the Sermon On the Mount, I haven’t yet taken any courses from Westminster Theological Seminary (which I am sure was located in Jerusalem at the time before Israel became the church) on *redemptive historical hermeneutics*. That could be critical because I recently heard from a counselee (being counseled by a NANC certified counseling center) that some counselors, you know, the advanced ones, are counseling people from *narrative diagrams* instead of cognitive literature. Yes, instead of instruction, the counselor drew a diagram of the counselee’s life and showed him where he was located in the diagram. Wow, Sweet dude, say amen and pass the bong.
But I learned much more than who the imperatives are directed at in the book of 1Corithians, I learned that 1Corithians does violence to Gospel Sanctification (the passive form of sanctification that I am concerned with) and its four pillars: NCT (New Covenant Theology; not all proponents of GS hold to NCT, but most do); heart theology; Christian hedonism, and redemptive historical hermeneutics. My post here will be far from a comprehensive list of examples from 1 Corinthians, but let me share some examples.
First, NCT teaches that the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments) is an isolated unit symbolized by stone rather than “hearts,” (or “word” verses “Spirit”) and is indicative of all biblical imperatives, and is not applicable to the New Testament (ie., New Covenant), but was replaced by a transcendent “higher Law of Christ” that now interprets (the “apostles hermeneutic”) the Old Testament as partial revelation that was pre-designed by God for replacement. Paul’s statements in 1Corintians destroys this notion completely.
1) In 1:31, Paul makes a case for one of his points by citing Jere. 9:24, and prefaces it with the phrase “it is written.” This is the exact phrase Jesus used in Mathew 4:4 (before the New Testament was written), and said that man lives by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Therefore, man also lives by every word in the Old Testament, including the so-called “Decalogue.”
2) Paul validates his arguments to the Corinthians by citing the Old Testament, often prefaced with “it is written” in 9:8, 9:9, 10:6, 10:7, 10:8, 10:9, 10:10, 10:11, 10;25-26, 11:16, 14:21-22, 14:34. Therefore, the OT often lends understanding to the NT and vise versa.
3) In 9:8 and 14:34, Paul calls the whole OT “the Law.” In 9:9, he calls the Pentateuch “the Law.” In 14:21, he calls Isaiah 28:11-12 “the Law.” The Ten Commandments is not “the Law” apart from the rest of Scripture, and therefore the focus of doctrine that separates its purpose from the New Covenant.
Secondly, GS teaches that all of our focus must be “change at the heart level,” resulting in obedience that is a “mere natural flow.” Paul didn’t get the memo. Paul was a strong advocate of what I believe Jay Adams calls “radical amputation.” In other words, life choices that present obstacles to sinning or an escape from sin. Said another way, change on the *outside level.* Clearly, Paul’s instruction for those who cannot control their lust was to simply get married (7:9). He also advocated obedience in regard to sexual relations to prevent temptation (7:5) By the way, I know of a specific case where adultery was the final death-blow to a marriage were depriving of intimate relations was a long standing issue. The counselor told them to disregard 1 Cor. 7:5 because what they really needed to do was get to the “heart issues.” In 10:14, Paul says to “flee” from adultery. In 11:31, Paul said to judge ourselves to prevent judgment from God in our lives. He also uses fear of judgment from God to motivate us to behave in 10:8 (sexual immorality), 10:9 (provoking God), and 10:10 (grumbling).
Also, it may be noted that Paul advocated the redirection of desires through obedience: 14:1, 14:12, 14:15, 14:18, and a strong emphasis on exertion regarding self discipline (9:25, 9:27).
Thirdly, Christian hedonism stands against obeying God from the perspective of duty, rather than pure motives supposedly marked by joy. Again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 7:3, he commands husbands to fulfill their marital “duty” to their wives.
Fourthly, in regard to redemptive historical hermeneutics:
1) RHH teaches that the Bible is to be used sorely “in the service of the gospel.” But again, Paul didn’t get the memo. In 4:1, he refers to biblical truth as “things,” a plural noun clearly implying a multiplicity of propositional truth. Conspicuously absent is a definite article in regard to the gospel. But, in 11:2 Paul uses a definite article in regard to “teachings,” minus an object, making it a noun in plural form, and thereby implying in no uncertain terms that Scripture encompasses a multiplicity of propositional truth. If the gospel is the ne plus ultra of Scripture, how could Paul make such statements?
2) RHH teaches that the Bible is a gospel narrative that serves the same purpose for believers as well as unbelievers; it is to continually impart life to both. Micheal Horton goes to great lengths to make this point in “Christless Christianity.” So, the idea that the Bible contains truth that we receive for the purpose of salvation, and then move on to “something else,” is vehemently dismissed by advocates of RHH. But yet, Paul said in 14:22 that tongues is a sign to unbelievers, and prophesy (knowledge that edifies) “is for believers, not for unbelievers.” This shows clearly that the Bible does contain a dichotomy of truth for different uses in regard to justification and sanctification. Obviously.
3) RHH promotes an exclusive redemptive hermeneutic, but Paul displays an example of how the Bible uses various hermeneutics and states them accordingly. If no hermeneutic is stated, the plain sense of the text is assumed (“he opened His mouth and taught them”). For instance, Paul said to the Galatians in regard to part of what he wrote: “this is allegory.” We have another example of this throughout chapter 7, where Paul carefully explains the the context in which what he writes is to be interpreted.
4) RHH teaches that both Scripture and general revelation are not for the purpose of practical application, but rather to “show forth the gospel.” But Paul speaks of a practical application in 11:14,15 that, according to him, can be ascertained from nature; namely, that men should not have long hair. Many examples of this can, of course, be seen in the book of proverbs as well.
“Teachers” of our day have been laboring for some time to build a consistent theology that makes NCT, Christian hedonism, heart theology, and RHH, all fit together in application and experience. The results of this homework assignment make one thing crystal clear, at least one huge obstacle is Paul and his letter to the Corinthians.
paul
The Skeleton Reformation: Parts One and Two
“The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan”
Life can be really interesting. Some people I know are infatuated with all the nuances of nature that they discover; for example, a type of butterfly they had never seen before and so forth. Me? I just love to watch all of the new “discoveries” found by propagators of the antinomian doctrine known as the *gospel driven life* or *gospel sanctification.* Gospel sanctification is a tenet of New Covenant Theology, and can best be described as plenary monergism in every aspect of salvation, whether justification or sanctification.
As with most false doctrines, the advocates are primarily focused on the novelty of it. So when the novelty wears off, some new twist , or a “deeper” understanding must be brought forth to recharge the faithful as they wait with bated breath at the doors of the Church Of The Potted Plant. There is nothing new in regard to this. J.C. Ryle contended against a very similar doctrine in the 19th century and had this to say accordingly:
“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.”
While I am still looking for new and exciting trends to come out of this movement like the anticipation of daily baptisms for believers (since we are saved by the gospel everyday), one has come forth that I never saw coming: the depiction of Christians as skeletons. Man! How could I not see that coming? It is a perfect picture of their theology; Christians are dead and can do nothing. From blog handles to Facebook status pictures, the GS faithful are proudly presenting themselves as empty skeletons, humbly praying, unlike those arrogant, hateful skeletons we often see in Hollywood movies. In Micheal Horton’s book “Christless Christianity (pg 189),” he presents Sunday worship as a valley of dry bones event; a reference from Ezekiel, chapter 37:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ.”
So in other words, Sunday worship, like the rest of the Christians life, is a passive event in which dry bones are brought to life on a continual bases. No doubt; I would think this would be essential for believing skeletons. Christians are therefore just a valley of dry bones and unable to do anything but wait for God to give us life on a continual bases. And even if he does, we are only then able to get on our skeleton knees and pray for more life. The skeleton is now the new colors of the Christian clan. Hopefully, the Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang will not sue for copyright infringement.
But there is only one thing missing. They forget to put their favorite Bible verse (slogan) over the praying skeleton, Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
It would be perfect (even though the context of this passage is clearly a contention against justification by works): a black leather jacket with the praying skeleton, and an arching, fancy font of Galatians 2:20 over the praying skeleton. Then you could have a sub-title / slogan underneath like “Ride to Live. Live to Ride”; except we would say, “Live to Do Nothing. Do Nothing to Live.” Would that seem offensive? Why? Christians are more and more like motorcycle gangs these days; nether care very much for the Law of God.
Part Two: “Yes my friends, a skeleton reformation is at hand!”
Just when I thought I had heard it all, a Facebook friend sent me a link to a gospel-driven blog. When I read the link, I could only sit and shake my head in disbelief. But before I get to that, let me backup and explain what “gospel driven” is. It is also known as gospel sanctification, gospel-driven sanctification, gospel-centered (add just about everything; parenting, marriage, counseling, etc., etc.,). In the following, I will refer to it as GS.
It is a doctrine that eliminates key distinctions between justification and sanctification, leading to an unbiblical view of sanctification; namely, an overly passive form of sanctification. Basically, it teaches that “the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” So, think with me for a moment: indicative in the gospel message is the fact that we cannot do anything to be saved; likewise, if we are sanctified by the gospel as well, neither can we do anything to be sanctified.
So also, before we were saved, we were dead, and according to proponents of GS, you still are. They interpret Paul’s (the apostle) statement in regard to being “dead to the Law” as an inability on our part to keep the Law, even though we are born again. As Paul Tripp said concerning believers in How People Change, “when you are dead, you can’t do anything.” Likewise, John Piper quotes Romans 6:17 to make the same point:
“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 [Christians] are [present tense] enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17 [a justification verse that is clearly in the past tense] ).”
You then will ask: “If we can’t obey, who then obeys?” Answer: the Christ in us. We are dead, Christ is the only thing in us living, so he is the one obeying, not us. Their primary proof text for this is Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
You then may continue the dialog with the following question: “Well then, how do we know when it is Christ obeying, or us trying to obey without Christ?” Answer: whenever you obey without hesitation, and full of joy, that’s when it is Christ obeying for you. It’s called Christian hedonism.
Let’s pretend you continue to ask questions: “Can’t we do anything in regard to obedience?” Answer: Yes, two things, and two things only; using the Bible as a gospel narrative only, and “deep repentance.” I am not going to delve into deep repentance here, but suffice to say for now, that in my opinion, it is a mystical concept that supposedly identifies idols of the heart in detailed fashion. It falls under the auspices of heart theology, a brainchild of David Powlison hatched in early 1980 via his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” program at Westminster Seminary. In regard to the gospel narrative (the Bible), we are changed from “glory to glory” by “gazing on the gospel narrative (the Bible),” or as John Piper says: “beholding as a way of becoming.” Their text for this is 2Corinthians 3:18;
“But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord [the gospel narrative], are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.”
I know, I know, this passage doesn’t say “the gospel narrative,” it says, “the Lord,” but John Piper’s answer to that would be: “God is the Gospel.” The point here being, that if we use the Bible as a gospel narrative only, we are able to “yield” our bodies so that Christ can obey for us, and through us. Dana Stoddard calls this, “new obedience” (Journal of Biblical Counseling, Westminster Seminary).
But let’s keep pretending. You then ask: “Paul, how in the world can you see the whole Bible, and every verse, as being about the gospel?” Dude, that’s a great question. Answer: the redemptive historical hermeneutic, as articulated by Geerhardus Vos. This hermeneutic views the Scriptures through a gospel prism, and according to some, more than likely, is based on tenets of Historicism, which includes its share of ancient pagan philosophy. It paves the way for the whole GS scheme to fit together as a whole [“ignoring textual ideas”; Ted Black, The Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos].
But it gets better. If you think the gospel saves you, and then you “move on to something else” (according to Tripp, this would be: practical application of the Scriptures, biblical thinking, imperatives, ect.), “you loose both.” In other words, if you don’t believe in a plenary monergistic sanctification, but instead believe in a synergistic sanctification ( a dependent colaboring with God in sanctification), you believe in a false gospel; and your lost; and you unregenerate; and you were never saved. Did I leave anything out? Michael Horton states it this way:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57, emphasis / underline by me [the actual title of the conference recently held at Grace Community Church; good grief!] ).
No wonder then, that John Piper also said: “Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, say that we are saved by the gospel, and then we move on to something else” (emphasis / underline by me). Also, no wonder that Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.”
Furthermore, no wonder that some proponents of this neo-reformed movement like to represent themselves as mere skeletons, as some do in blog handles and logos, like the praying skeleton featured at the beginning of this post. Yes, it’s a miraculous work of God that a skeleton can even get on its knees, and then all we can do is pray; for as we know, skeletons are “dead and can do nothing.” And as you might imagine, these humble, loving skeletons wish to save the church, which is totally unaware that only skeletons are saved. Yes my friends, a skeleton reformation is at hand! Besides that, these praying skeletons, in their endeavor to save the church, are continually finding new “truths” that the anti-skeleton, Papal minions are totally unaware of; for instance, did you know that you cannot be saved unless you have asked God to forgive you of your good works?
That’s right, the skeletons have once again raised the stakes as they plead for evangelicals everywhere to be saved. This now brings me to the link my friend sent me. It is a quote from Tim Keller’s book, The Prodical God:
“What must we do, then, to be saved? To find God we must repent of the things we have done wrong, but if that is all you do, you may remain just an elder brother. To truly become a Christian we must also repent of the reasons we ever did anything right. Pharisees only repent of their sins, but Christians repent for the very roots of their righteousness, too. We must learn how to repent of the sin under all our other sins and under all our righteousness – the sin of seeking to be our own Savior and Lord. We must admit that we’ve put our ultimate hope in both our wrongdoing and right doing we have been seeking to get around God or get control of God in order to get hold of those things. It is only when you see the desire to be your own Savior and Lord—lying beneath both your sins and your moral goodness—that you are on the verge of becoming a Christian indeed. When you realize that the antidote to being bad is not just being good, you are on the brink. If you follow through, it will change everything—how you relate to God, self, others, the world, your work, you sins, your virtue. It’s called the new birth because its so radical”
Bless their hearts, for being skeletons who cannot do anything, they sure are good at coming up with higher standards of righteousness for the purpose of salvation. You might also recall, Tim Keller is the one that Piper mentioned, along with Paul Tripp, to the (The) Christian Post, in regard to the type of repentance that he needed to focus on during his eight-month sabbatical. This should really scare us out of our skins, no pun intended. By the way, just in-case you think that this is a blog authored by hyper-Calvinist fanatics, think again. The excerpt was posted by the successor to James D. Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church, and visiting authors who post on this blog include D.A. Carson and Tim Challies. Let me ask anybody reading this post in regard to themselves and any Christians that they know; how many of us asked God to forgive us of things we did as unbelievers that were honorable, or according to the Law that He writes on every heart (conscience)? Look, there is no room here to address that theological debate, but here is my point: even if I had, in a time past, “repented” and embraced their goofy doctrine, here I would be, once again, being re-saved as these arrogant mystics continually come up with new stuff every week.
paul
John Piper Pleads for Evangelicals Everywhere to be Saved in His 6 Minute Gospel
There is a video widely circulated throughout the internet called “The Gospel in 6 Minutes.” It is excerpted from a sermon by John Piper called “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel.” Apparently, it was delivered in September of 1997, and till this day, the title of the sermon that inspired the video has not even raised a brow. “Strengthened by the gospel”? “Us” would be Christians, “strengthened” would be sanctification, and “gospel” would be the good news that saved us.
That’s what Piper believes. It’s the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. I could post-up just on the title. Regardless of the apostle Paul saying on numerous occasions that the gospel is the foundation of our faith that we build on (Rom. 15:20, 1Cor. 3:10-12, Heb. 6:1), Piper’s title would suggest that’s not the case. The premise that the same gospel message that got us into the kingdom, now sanctifies us, has very serious ramifications in regard to life and godliness. First, if you extrapolate this concept to its logical conclusions (a lost art in today’s church); the gospel is the message God uses to justify us, so, if we are sanctified by the same, an on-going justification would be required for our everyday walk with God. Sure, you could still call it sanctification because it grows as opposed to being a particular point in time, but what drives it is continual justification. Therefore, and think about this, justification is not a onetime event, it is ongoing.
Secondly, justification is monergistic (a complete and total work of God ALONE), so, that would limit sanctification to the same tenets of justification; namely, by faith alone! Are we sanctified by faith alone?
Thirdly, would a rejection of sanctification by faith alone short-circuit justification? Do we, therefore, have to believe in a monergistic sanctification by faith alone to be saved?
Fourthly, if we could not obey to be saved, and we are sanctified the same way we are justified, then who does the obeying? It couldn’t be us, right?
So, let me sum-up in regard to Piper’s title with five interpretive questions: Is sanctification by faith alone? Is sanctification by faith, and our works, a false gospel? Do we have to be saved daily? (as stated by a proponent of GS in a chapel sermon at SEBTS entitled “Playing With the Box” in which he plainly said that we need daily salvation). Who obeys? How does sanctification by faith alone function? Are these not questions that effect the very core of how we function as Christians? The guy preached this message when? His buddies are who? Am I here right now?
Am I seeing too much in a mere title? Well, let’s see. The video excerpt is divided into four parts: Let’s start with the first part: “What is the Gospel?”:
“What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence.
The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.
That’s the gospel.”
See anything missing? It’s the same thing that’s missing in 99.99% of all gospel presentations by proponents of Gospel Sanctification: repentance. Some time ago, I stumbled upon a video of John MacArthur verbally flogging Rick Warren for the absence of repentance in his (Warren’s) gospel presentation. Hmmm. But remember, Piper and Mac are buddies, and besides, Rick Warren is not a rock star in Reformed circles. But never the less, proponents of GS believe in what they call “deep repentance.” I am not going to stop here to explain it, but suffice to say that it would be very difficult to insert into a gospel presentation because of its complexity. However, I am seeing a movement among some proponents to attempt to implement the concept into the presentation of the gospel. In other words, they pass on mere repentance, but they want to implement deep repentance (sometimes referred to as “intelligent repentance”) instead. Like I said, for now, I’m going to pass on an explanation, but let me at least give you this snippet: it involves repenting of “good works” in order to be saved. And trust me, they don’t want you doing any good works in sanctification either.
As an aside, let me interject another example that is slightly off-subject. Missing from the transcript (from Piper’s website) that I am using for this article, Piper makes this statement: God entered history IN Jesus Christ [slightly paraphrased]. Is that true? Did God enter history “in” Christ? This is a term that I am often hearing among proponents of GS, this whole “God IN Christ” business. When I ask them to clarify; in every case, they quickly say, “I didn’t mean it exactly that way.” Perhaps, but I am not the only one who is concerned that the Trinity is being distorted by an unbalanced view of soteriology in reformed circles (see page 192, “Future Isreal” by Barry E. Horner). More than likely, Piper was referring to the Christocentric hermeneutic that is also a staple tenet of GS doctrine, of which Horner also expresses concern on the same page of his book cited above. As we proceed, you will see a major element of my thesis here; to be specific, this doctrine continues to get stranger and stranger, almost daily, while mainline Evangelical leaders seem glibly oblivious.
Now we move to the second part of the video: “You Can’t Outgrow the Gospel”:
“You never, never, never [actually, he repeats “never” 23 times; think it‘s important to him?] outgrow your need for it. Don’t ever think of the gospel as, “That’s the way you get saved, and then you get strong by leaving it and doing something else.”
No! We are strengthened by God through the gospel every day, till the day we drop.
You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel.”
I think this statement clearly reiterates my opening description of Gospel Sanctification, but what does he mean by “leaving it and doing SOMETHING ELSE.” What is the “something else”? Well, it’s ANYTHING ELSE but the gospel, obviously. And I do mean anything else. For an Idea, read Paul David Tripp’s (the reining prince of Gospel Sanctification) explanation of what the OTHER THINGS are in “How People Change,” pages 23 thru 36. On page 27, he says that the mere act of changing our thinking to biblical thinking is activity that “omits the person and work of Christ as savior.” Stop right there. This concise statement answers two of my interpretive questions: who does the obeying in sanctification? Well, since the relatively passive activity of changing our thinking omits the “work of Christ,” obviously, Christ is doing the work and not us. Comprender? Also, is sanctification by faith and works a false gospel? Yes, because, according to Tripp, it omits “Christ as SAVIOR.” Right? Also, let me mention that Jerry Bridges, another propagator of GS, coined the phrase “you must preach the gospel to yourself everyday” as Piper eludes to it here. This is often Jerry Bridges’ prescription (and most other advocates of GS, especially Dana Stoddard) for people who struggle with assurance of salvation, as opposed to the obvious biblical prescription of examining behavior / thinking and doing something about it. Is this not a major, ground-level issue in our Christian walk? Why doesn’t anybody care? I am truly perplexed!
We now move to the third part of Piper’s six-minute gospel: “How the Gospel Strengthens”:
“Here’s an illustration, and I use it not because it’s any big deal to speak from my life, but because it’s what I walked through and where I most pointedly in the last year experienced the power of the gospel to make me strong. (Many of you are walking through things much heavier than prostate cancer—much heavier.)
Do you remember the verses that I shared with you back in February that were almighty for me? It was that moment right after the doctor says, “I think we need to do a biopsy,” when this stab of fear comes. It didn’t last long, mercifully.
And then came—what? 1Thessalonians 5:9-10. It’s just as pure gospel as you can get.
God has not destined you for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,who died for you so that whether you wake or sleep you will live with him.
Settled. Peace like a river.”
This clearly demonstrates how the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification has changed biblical counseling. Instead of biblical directives, the attempt is going to be to find the right gospel “picture” (see the transcript from Piper’s address to the 2010 T4G conference) that fits the individual’s “need” at that time. I have witnessed this reality first-hand in actual counseling situations. I was also in a Reformed church one morning that propagates GS, and heard an elder of that church testify to how God miraculously turned a marriage around in the first meeting when he “showed them the gospel” from a particular Bible text. The couple were Christians who came to that church for counseling. In the transcript that I am working from, which came from Piper’s website; his comment in the same section as follows, was left out: “That’s why the Bible is so thick, there is a gospel presentation for every need of life” [paraphrased]. The fact that the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification is radically changing what goes on in biblical counseling offices should greatly alarm the Evangelical church. For instance, most Evangelicals who show-up at one of these counseling offices will be dealt with as if they are not even saved; being Evangelicals.
We now move to the fourth and final section of the Piper video: “A Plea to Believe”:
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.
I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the
gospel.
Don’t put it off. “
Piper begins this section with the following: “I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.” In context, what does he mean that they are not “trusting Jesus Christ”? Well, he continues: “Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.” So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: “I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.” He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to “us” (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel”). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in “condemnation.” This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of “How People Change.”
I only have one plea for myself: among all of my Southern Baptist brothers (Al Mohler etc.), and Reformed guys like Piper, MacArthur, RC Sproul, Michael Horton (if you move on from the gospel to anything else, you loose both sanctification and justification [that means you ain’t saved], see page 62 of “Christless Christianity”), etc; who have been hanging out together, would somebody figure out who’s saved and who isn’t? I would like to know who I can follow horizontally. Or, are these issues just not important? Or, do I just need to shut-up and be mesmerized by expert pontification?
paul
What Michael Horton and John Piper et al., Really Believe About the Scriptures, as Articulated by Robert Brinsmead
“That’s just gospel—perfectly timed, perfectly applied, perfectly suited to my need. That’s why the Bible is so thick—because there are so many different needs that you have. And there are suitable places where the gospel is unfolded for you, so that if you immerse yourself in the whole book, always with an eye for what Christ has wrought for you and purchased for you in this thick, glorious history of God’s interaction with people, he will give you what you need.”
~ John Piper
“If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock
but the Spirit working through the gospel.”
~ Michael Horton
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
~ Robert Brinsmead
“This means that unless we are caught up in the Spirit of the gospel, we cannot understand or use the Bible correctly. Apart from the gospel the Bible is letter (gramma), not Spirit (pneuma). “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.”
~ Robert Brinsmead
“Furthermore, for all practical purposes, the author is saying that using the Bible for instruction, as well as all other uses Paul communicated to Timothy, is a use of Scripture apart from the working of the Holy Spirit.”
Note: Quotations by Brinsmead in this article seem to indicate that he is saying that the Scriptures are not inerrant, but that is not what he is saying; he is saying that the Bible is completely inerrant and trustworthy when it speaks of the gospel, which is its sole purpose anyway.
The article can be seen in full here
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments