They Just Had To Have Their Own Bible But….
….some things are just better left alone. The GS movement has been busily running about setting up there own spiritual infrastructure for some time now, and apparently, they wanted their own, unique Bible as well. The Bible of choice for the Sonship / GS faithful is the ESV, published in the very contemporary year of 2001. In the advertisement posted at the end of this article—featuring the who’s who of GS doctrine, Francis Chan says: “I’ve loved using the ESV translation because [it’s the GS thing to do] I trust the scholarship [emphasis mine] behind it and the accuracy [emphasis mine] of the interpretation.” Hmmmm: he’s wrong about Jesus being our Beverly Hills 90210 boyfriend—could he be wrong about the ESV as well?
The GS tsunami of the past ten years has fooled some into thinking that the ESV should be “The Bible of the future—ideal for public worship and private reading.” And apparently, not if Mark L. Strauss has anything to do with it. He recently wrote:
“So I like the ESV. I am writing this article, however, because I have heard a number of Christian leaders claim that the ESV is the ‘Bible of the future’—ideal for public worship and private reading, appropriate for adults, youth and children. This puzzles me, since the ESV seems to me to be overly literal—full of archaisms, awkward language, obscure idioms, irregular word order, and a great deal of ‘Biblish.’ Biblish is produced when the translator tries to reproduce the form of the Greek or Hebrew without due consideration for how people actually write or speak. The ESV, like other formal equivalent versions (RSV; NASB;NKJV; NRSV), is a good supplement to versions that use normal English, but is not suitable as a standard Bible for the church. This is because the ESV too often fails the test of standard English.”
His entire review can be read here: http://bible-translation.110mb.com/improvingesv.pdf , but I will post the snafu’s documented by Strauss that even made me blush, and at times, laugh:
[Begin Strauss excerpt] For example, the ESV (following the RSV) originally rendered Gen. 30:35, “But that day Laban removed the male goats that were striped …and put them in charge of his sons.”It is remarkable that Laban had so much confidence in his goats! This gaffe was pointed out and a second printing of the ESV corrected it, taking authority away from Laban’s goats: “… and put them in the charge of his sons.” Here are a few more “oops” translations that I have found in the ESV.
“Grinding Together”?!
Luke 17:35 ESV “There will be two women grinding together. One will be taken and the other left.”
Comment: In contemporary English, “grinding together” suggests seductive dancing or something worse. (Perhaps both should have been taken for judgment!) Most versions clarify that this means grinding “grain,” “meal” or “flour” (cf. TNIV, NIV, NLT, HCSB, NET, NRSV, REB, etc.)
Rock badgers are people too!
Prov. 30:26 ESV “the ants are a people not strong, yet they provide their food in the summer; rock badgers are a people not mighty, yet they make their homes in the cliffs;”
Comment: In addition to the tortured word order, the ESV’s use of “people” is very strange. We sometimes joke that animals are people too, but surely ants and rock badgers are “creatures” or “species,” not people.
Nice legs!
Ps. 147:10 ESV “His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man,”
Comment: Taking pleasure in a man’s legs will surely leave readers chuckling. TNIV reads “in the power of human legs”; NET has “by the warrior’s strong legs.”
Such clean teeth!
Amos 4:6 ESV “I gave you cleanness of teeth in all your cities”
Comment: It sounds like God is distributing toothbrushes to the Israelites. The Hebrew idiom means they had nothing to eat. The TNIV reads “I gave you empty stomachs,”; HCSB: “I gave you absolutely nothing to eat.” NET: “I gave you no food to eat.”
Trembling loins?
Psalm 69:23 ESV Let their eyes be darkened, so that they cannot see, and make their loins tremble continually.
Comment: This translation will surely send twitters through the junior high group. Trembling loins sounds like someone has to go to the bathroom.
“Double-tongued” deacons?
1 Tim. 3:8 ESV Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain
Comment: Sounds like a mock “Indian-speak” (with forked-tongue) or some strange alien creature. The Greek is dilogoi (etymologically, “two words/messages”), which means “insincere,” “lacking integrity,” “hypocritical,” or even “two-faced” (NET; GW).
Keep that faith to yourself!
Rom. 14:22 ESV The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God.
Comment: The ESV seems to be discouraging believers from sharing their faith. But the word pistis here refers to personal convictions about food and drink, not about saving faith.6 TNIV So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. REB If you have some firm conviction, keep it between yourself and God.
Showing off the flesh
Gal. 6:12 ESV It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised….
Comment: “A good showing in the flesh” sounds like a bikini contest.
Ruth the mother of Boaz?
Ruth 4:14-15 ESV Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the LORD, Who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be Renowned in Israel! He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.”
Comment: The only antecedent to “him” is Boaz. It sounds like Ruth gave birth to her husband Boaz.
Planting ears?
Psalm 94:9 ESV He who planted the ear, does he not hear? He who formed the eye, does he not see?
Comment: “Planting an ear” sounds like an agricultural metaphor. The Hebrew nata in this context means “formed,” or “fashioned.” TNIV Does he who fashioned the ear not hear?…NET Does the one who makes the human ear not hear?
Watch out for falling lots!
Acts 1:26 ESV And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias…
Comment: One hopes Matthias was not hurt when the lot fell on him. The TNIV has “the lot fell to Matthias.” The NET has “the one chosen was Matthias.”
Israel’s gender confusion
Hosea 8:14 ESV For Israel has forgotten his Maker and built palaces, and Judah has multiplied fortified cities; so I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour her strongholds.
Comment: Readers will probably wonder why he gets the cities and she gets the strongholds.
Comforted or not?
Acts 20:12 ESV And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.
Comment: “Not a little comforted” sounds like they were not comforted in the least by Eutychus’ recovery. The meaning of course is the opposite, that they were greatly comforted. TNIV: …and were greatly comforted.
REB: …greatly relieved that he was alive.
A man without a city
Acts 21:39 ESV Paul replied, “I am a Jew, from Tarsus in Cilicia, a citizen of no obscure city.”
Comment: Paul sounds like a man without a city. TNIV is only slightly better (“a citizen of no ordinary city”). NLT captures the sense: “Tarsus in Cilicia, which is an important city.”
Oh man!
Rom. 2:1 ESV Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges.
Comment: In contemporary English, “Oh man!” is an exclamation, not a vocative. It sounds like Paul is saying, “Oh man, are you in trouble!” which of course is something like what he means (!), but not what the ESV intended. Even a literal version like the NASB recognizes the potential misunderstanding of the vocative, translating, “Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment.”
Four Reasons Why I like Rob Bell
I have heard of Rob Bell, and have a lot of info about him backlogged to read. So, I know very little about Rob; but I can tell you I already like him. How can this be? And what do I specifically like about him?
1. He’s honest: I know this because Justin Taylor and John Piper were able to make judgments about his book before it was even published. Is he a universalist? I don’t know, I haven’t read the book yet, but he apparently has no bones about being clear as to what he believes, unlike those who pass judgment on him. Indicative of New Calvinism is the nuanced / ambiguous / subjective verbiage that they call “teaching.” Whether Piper or his fawning servant, Justin Taylor, or Keller, Powlison, Tripp, Mahaney, Chan, etc., etc, add nausea, you read their books, page after page after page saying, “I know what he’s saying and what he really believes, but he’s not coming out with it completely.” In each of their books, you can find one or two definitive statements that clearly define what they believe. Apparently, my new-found friend is not like that.
2. He’s humble: I know this because unlike most New Calvinists, he’s forthcoming about what he believes; again, unlike his accusers. New Calvinists believe they are on the cutting edge of a mega Reformation. They are experts concerning the “deep things of the gospel.” But here is the key to understanding their arrogance: they don’t come right out with what they believe because most of God’s people “aren’t ready for it yet.” Do you see the arrogance in that mentality? Apparently, Rob doesn’t think he’s on a higher spiritual plane than his followers. Apparently, he’s completely forthright about what he believes and is willing to let the chips fall where they may. Apparently, to Rob, disagreement with him doesn’t equal stupidity or lack of spiritual fortitude. How else could everybody already know he is a universalist before the book is in print?
3. He’s kind and compassionate: Unlike his accusers, he obviously doesn’t think there is anything wrong with having a deep desire for everyone to be saved. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t think hope is childish. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t equate fatalism with spiritual maturity. In “When I Don’t Desire God,” you finally put a finger on Piper’s stoic fatalism (after dieing the death of a thousand cuts) in the last chapter. Piper believes that joy cannot be obtained by laying claim to God’s promises. No, no, we can’t have that—that would be contrary to New Clavinism’s “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” To think God would do anything at all because of something we did is anathema! Like salvation, Piper believes that joy is a gift given by God (because he actually teaches that the two are synonymous) and we can’t do anything to obtain it. He pretty much says in the book that if you don’t have joy, all you can do is pray and hope God gives it to you. It doesn’t sound like my new friend Rob is up with that angle on things.
Of course, I don’t agree with universalism, but there is something worse—the merciless, haughty, mean-spirited character of New Calvinism. Point in case: The hero among New Calvinists because he excommunicated 256 parishioners for an unbiblical reason; nonattendance. Even a child can see the problem with this being a standard for church discipline. How many absences would it take to qualify someone for discipline? Twice? Four times? And how many in what time period? And where would you find such a standard in the Bible? Frankly, I find the audacity of New Calvinists to criticize Bell, over-the-top and totally disgusting. My cat usually sits on my desk and watches me blog; not today, she is on the floor puking-up hair balls—no wonder.
4. He’s courageous: He probably knew the Pope of New Calvinism was going to excommunicate him. Yes, did you hear about the tweet by Pope John the First? “Bye, bye, Rob Bell.” Am I the only one who sees the extreme arrogance in this statement? Think about it; bye, bye from what? The New Calvinist cartel? And who in the %#@& is John Piper to make that judgment? Is there anyone walking the face of the Earth that is more arrogant than John Piper?
Well Rob, get ready to join the Joel Olsteen club. That is a group of well-knowns that are considered expendable by the New Calvinist cowards. These are the group of men that they berate to demonstrate that they stand for the “truth” (gag). And don’t take it too hard my friend, Pope John Piper the First really doesn’t know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul, he only thinks he does; you can trust me on that one. And don’t be as hard on them as they are on you, after all, even whores have standards, and Justin Taylor thinks you crossed the line because that’s what John Piper thinks.
Rob, let me encourage you; I am going to buy your book, and if you are a universalist, well, I strongly disagree with that, but I wonder: what’s worse? A kind-hearted, humble, honest, couragous, universalist that knows he’s a universalist, or an arrogant antinomian that doesn’t know he’s an antinomian? Hmmmm.
paul
“That’s Not True”: Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification Statement
I can tell Susan will be a huge help on the second edition of “Another Gospel” which is an apology against Gospel Sanctification. Basically, the doctrine makes sanctification and justification the same thing. However, I never cease to be amazed at how difficult it is for Christians to get their mind around this doctrine and its ramifications. One reason is the fact that the following is true: both sanctification and justification share some of the same progressive elements, but GS makes them entirely synonymous which translates, for all practical purposes, into Antinomianism which has always been deemed heretical by evangelicals.
Susan seems to have a decent grasp on several issues spawned by GS, but like many, she is still working at putting it all together. Then it happened. We were at a basketball game and she picked up a book I had brought with me, opened it, and just started reading. Then, about a minute later, she said the following: “That’s not true.” I then inquired, “what isn’t true?” She pointed me to the Preface where Phillip Carey writes the following in “Good News for Anxious Christians”:
“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 then replied to her: “Honey, that’s Gospel Sanctification.” Ah, the power of concise statements, and it’s very unlikely this essay won’t be added to the book in revised form. First, most proponents of GS recognize that the doctrine is not orthodox. This can be seen in Cary’s admission via the first sentence: “Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe.” No Phillip, many of us find it odd, not just “some”. Like another advocate of GS said, “the vast majority” of Christians find it odd (Tullian Tchividjian). Another advocate, Paul David Tripp, described those who find it odd as “hordes of.” This is a characteristic of those who propagate GS – they think they are modern-day reformers. In fact, Michael Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” The arrogance that comes with this mentality lags not far behind.
Secondly, we see the GS tenet of justification not being a one time, final act of God in the following two sentences: “I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure out 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.” Though advocates of GS deceptively refer to this as “progressive sanctification,” it’s really progressive justification which is totally unorthodox. Another example of this would be Paul Tripp’s belief that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” and not glorification. If you think it smacks of a daily re-saving / salvation, consider this comment made on Justin Taylor’s blog:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins.”
Next, we see the GS tenet of sanctification by faith alone in this sentence: “ We become new people in Christ by faith alone…” Again, another tenet that is totally unorthodox. JC Ryle said:
“It thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
But, keep in mind, according to the GS doctrine, sanctification is justification.
Next, we see the tenet of “the imputed active obedience of Christ”( Another way advocates state IAOC is “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event”) in this sentence from the same aforementioned statement: “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.” So, if we can’t even let God enable us, who obeys? Jesus does, he obeys for us. This is also indicative of the GS tenet that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ while we remain “totally depraved,” and “enslaved” to sin. Obviously, if we are still totally depraved, we can’t obey, Jesus must obey for us. This tenet is propagated throughout “How People Change,” a book written by Paul Tripp.
Lastly, we see the GS proclamation that co-laboring with Christ in the sanctification process is a false gospel ( …”not by our good works”). Paul Tripp states this in no uncertain terms when he said that even the passive endeavor of changing our thinking to align with Scripture effectively “denies the work of Christ as Savior.” He has also described any effort of ours at all in the sanctification process as “Christless activism.” In fact, this is also Michael Horton’s thesis for his book “Christless Christianity.”
So there you have it. The tenets of GS: progressive justification (which excludes sanctification); sanctification by faith alone; the total depravity of the saints; the imputation of obedience (Christ obeys for us); and monergistic sanctification (the only true gospel).
The doctrine is propagated by many well known, supposedly mainline evangelical leaders of our day. Primarily, it boils down to being an antinomian, let go and let God theology. How the doctrine articulates the use of the gospel only in the sanctification process is another body of information.
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
Jesus Obeys For Us? Is That What We Really Believe?
“The fact that Christians buy into ‘the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,’ is just plain embarrassing.”
I guess the belief sweeping through Christendom that saints are unable to participate in the sanctification process is just fine with everybody. Also, we know that Christ died for our sins, but did he also live on earth for our works in sanctification? Was one of the primary purposes of His first appearing to fulfill the Law for us, and thereby nullifying a necessity to uphold the Law in the sanctification process by us? That seems like a major doctrinal angle to me with serious consequences regarding life application. But hey, I guess that’s just me. This neo-Reformed doctrine can be seen clearly in a recent post by Justin Taylor entitled “Imperatives – Indicatives = Impossibilities” on his “Between Two Worlds” blog. The title of his blog is a reference to the Biblical Theology of Geerhardus Vos. “Biblical Theology” is an interpretive process initiated by an eighteenth century liberal named Johann Philipp Gabler, who emphasized interpretation based on Historicism as opposed to dogma (ideas drawn from the text using literal interpretation). Vos supposedly took Gabler’s concept in a more conservative direction. Supposedly.
Obviously, all of the grammatical commands in the Bible with the saints being the object of the action (God commanding) is a serious problem for those who propagate this neo-Reformed doctrine, sometimes referred to as Gospel Sanctification. Hence, the post by Taylor (http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/05/03/imperatives-indicatives-impossibilities/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+between2worlds+%28Between+Two+Worlds%29&utm_content=Netvibes ), that states that all commands in the Bible are preceded by a historical account of God performing the foundation of the command beforehand. In other words, we are not really obeying, we are merely displaying the obedience of Christ, who obeys for us. The only problem is the following: to suggest that this is a consistent grammatical pattern throughout the New Testament is an insult to any intelligence one might possess. Throughout the NT, God also makes His actions contingent on our obedience. The fact that Christians buy into “the imperative command is [always] grounded in the indicative event,” is just plain embarrassing. I address this in one of the chapters of my book:
Click to access essay%2011.PDF
The link is the specific excerpt, and catalogs many examples.
In this particular post, Taylor also displays the attitude among GS advocates that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, and invariably on a mission from God to save the church from orthodox evangelicalism:
“The problem with the typical evangelical motivation toward radical or sacrificial living is that ‘imperatives divorced from indicatives become impossibilities’ (to quote Tullian Tchividjian). Or another way that Tullian puts it: ‘gospel obligations must be based on gospel declarations.’
This ‘become what you are’ way of speaking is strange for many us. It seems precisely backward. But we must adjust our mental compass in order to walk this biblical path and recalibrate in order to speak this biblical language.”
In addition, the post is very insightful because several GS cronies comment in unguarded fashion. How this theology fleshes itself out in real life can be ascertained by the many comments (which had to be closed due to the number of Kool-Aid drinkers rushing the alter to drink from the vat).
“Alex” said: “I hear Tim Keller doing this a lot in his preaching. He will often organize his message around, “Here’s what you need to do, but you’re not doing it and in fact you can’t do it. You will never be able to do this until you see what Christ has done/who Christ has made you”.
“Mike” said: “….And all along they’ve been doing it in their own strength, because no one tells them they can rest in the finished work of Christ: both His passive obedience on the Cross and, as Chad mentioned, His active obedience throughout the 33 years before the Cross.”
Is that true? In the sanctification process, are we to “rest”? And are we to totally rest in what Christ has already done in our place? Remember, Alex also said that it is not us doing it [the obedience], and we couldn’t, even if we wanted to. To exert effort is to do it in our “own strength” (Mike).
Chad Bresson, another advocate of GS and a Christian mystic / blogger, further propagates the whole “Jesus obeys for us” idea in his comment on the same post:
“I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.”
Bresson’s comment concerning Christ’s “imputed active obedience “ should need no explanation in regard to what he is saying.
Other disturbing elements of GS can be seen in a comment by “Bruce” who reiterates the GS belief that there is no difference between justification and sanctification, and that we are “justified” every time Christ does not obey for us- via our confession:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!”
However, in all of the comments that were made, there was one voice of sanity that arose. Though I doubt the individual realizes the gravity of this false, antinomian doctrine; what he said, he said well, and I will use it for my conclusion. “Andrew” said the following:
“To be honest, at least in Reformed circles, I find that there is an equally large problem of total fear of ever trying to live in a godly way. No one would express it like this, of course, but the “I don’t want to work my way to righteousness” attitude means that almost any time a pastor doesn’t mention the gospel before he mentions godly living, the Reformed community jumps on him for it.
And of course there is something very right about this. But if I’m pasturing a church where I have been faithful to proclaim our total dependence on Christ’s righteousness in the gospel and I’m preaching through James, can’t I pound on the need to live a godly life? And here is exactly the problem: there are real parts of Scripture that simply don’t expound the indicative first.
For that matter, imagine that James was a Reformed blogger and wrote his letter as a blog entry first. Can you imagine the fury of the rest of the Reformed bloggers? “There is not nearly enough gospel in here, James! How can you expect us to live godly lives when you’ve given us no gospel?!?! Justification by works? Are you mad?!?!”
Now I don’t think that James and Paul are contradictory. But I do think that this statement: “This is not how Paul and the other New Testament writers motivated the church in light of the resurrection and the outpouring of the Spirit. They did give imperatives (=what you should do), but they do so only based on indicatives (=what God has done).” is mostly true, but overstated.”
(Andrew Faris blog: http://www.christiansincontext.org/ )
P.S. to Andrew,
Andrew,
They believe that synergistic sanctification is a false gospel.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment