“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 11: DA Carson Exposed in the Desert
I get my share of grief for identifying DA Carson as a primary proponent of the GS / Sonship doctrine. One reader recently challenged me by sending a Carson quote that was, of course, seemingly orthodox. So, I decided to do a GS / Sonship acid test, which seeks to determine if someone holds to the GS / Sonship view of Galatians 2 and 3. To test, you merely do a google search like this one: “DA Carson Galatians.” What came up was an annual convention sponsored by The Gospel Coalition at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The name of the event is “Clarus [year].” The annual event usually features two prominent teachers from the Sonship tribe. This particular seminar was “Clarus 2008,” and featured Carson teaming up with none other than Michael Horton.
The duo’s theme at this seminar was “Galatians and the Problem of Self Justification.” I listened to Carson’s message on Galatians 2:11-21 entitled “An Apostolic Disputation—and Justification.” Throughout all the tape that I listened to, the fawning enamoration from the members at Desert Springs, an obvious bastion of Sonship / GS doctrine, was obnoxiously evident as the listeners chuckled, laughed, and sighed at every clever phrase and profound utterance that came from Carson’s mouth. If your listening to that tape (mp3), you have to know these people are going to believe everything coming out of Carson’s mouth which is indicative of the Gospel Coalition’s cult of personality.
Aside from that, the message was a pure, unadulterated Sonship take on Galatians. Throughout the message, Carson speaks as if the daily details of Christian living have nothing to do with something called sanctification, but often used the word justification in that context, as the text does, but speaking with a flavor of ideas that we would normally associate with sanctification. Carson, and other Sonship proponents get away with this because most Christians don’t know the theological difference between justification and sanctification, which are in-fact biblical words / terms. Carson, in the same message, belittled the biblical idea of striving to please God as “having a good day,” and gives examples of how Christians supposedly pray about that, and thereby exposing their motives in trying to please God in their own efforts (not his words, but the same idea), which he likens to “spitting on the cross.” A usual mode of operation for GS teachers is to illustrate misguided attempts by Christians to please God (trying to do the right thing the wrong way) as proof that any striving on our part circumvents grace. It’s rarely about wrong application verses right application, but always a works / grace issue. This message was certainly no exception.
However, I have been a Christian for twenty-eight years and have never witnessed any of their extreme examples. Truly, GS propagators are the sultans of red herrings and straw men. But all in all, it can’t be denied that Carson’s message was primarily focused on Christian living in relationship to the law, and that using what text? Galatians 2:11-21. But, primarily, this text is about the law’s relationship to salvation, NOT Christian living. A much better text would have been Ephesians 4:17-32. If you examine all their (the GS brain trust) teachings carefully, the idea of Christian living and salvation (declared / imputed righteousness as a onetime act of God) are almost always synthesized. It is very subtle, but for instance, in Paul Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Seminary entitled “Playing With the Box” (Spring 2007), his introduction clearly concerns the gospel, but the body of the message clearly concerns sanctification in context of the gospel theme. Therefore, again, if one pays attention, their teachings on Christian living are almost always set in a gospel context that distorts the law’s role in sanctification / regeneration. It cannot be denied that they make no distinction between salvation and life application of God’s word.
Carson also taught in the same message that whenever Paul said “law” in Galatians, that Paul was referring to the “law covenant.” Um, this is a smoking gun. Most GS advocates are New Covenant theologians. NCT holds to the idea that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, which was the law covenant. Traditionally, orthodox evangelicals believe that even though the New Covenant is “better,” elements of the old are still intact, especially the law. In other words, the covenants build on each other. In Ephesians 2:12, the apostle Paul makes being alienated from Christ synonymous with being “strangers to the covenants.” Notice “covenants” is in the plural, not singular, then Paul later makes an Old Covenant application to life in Ephesians 6:1-3. Please note the following reference concerning proponents of NCT and the familiar suspects of GS:
“The last twenty-five years have seen a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Peter Ditzel, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer. The writings of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson on the relation of the Christian to the law reveal their sympathies with NCT. However they have not wanted themselves to be so labeled. John Piper also has many points of contact with this movement, but an article at Desiring God carefully distinguishes his position from the Covenant, New Covenant and Dispensational theological systems” (Theopedia,com).
That’s another GS mode of operation, avoiding labels to prevent detection, but these men are clearly in the NCT camp which is a tenet of GS doctrine. This is why I seriously doubt Michael Horton is a Covenant theologian regardless of what he or anyone else claims. His joined at the hip verbiage with Carson at the Q and A sessions of Clarus 08 also makes that difficult to believe as well. Furthermore, in the same message, Carson insinuated that Christians are not obligated to the law (a proper view of that text in Galatians should add “not for justification” after each consideration), but should obey the law as a way of being a Gentile for the sake of the Gentiles in the same way that Paul “became a Jew for the sake of the Jews.” But moreover, he added the warning that we should not do it in a way that gives people the idea that we can actually keep the law as Christians because, as he said earlier in the message: “….we just aren’t [we (Christians) aren’t (present tense)] good enough….consistent enough….whole enough.” Of course, the apostle Paul saw a difference between Christian liberty and upholding the law; Carson makes no such distinction in the same message.
In the Q and A sessions, Horton and Carson agree on the GS dichotomy of law and gospel, without including any clarification in regard to how that would relate to sanctification verses justification. This kind of ambiguity saturated the Q an A’s and the aforementioned message I listened to. Horton and Carson also paid homage to Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney—further demonstrating their kinship with Sonship / GS doctrine.
The classic GS / Sonship take on Galatians 1-5 as being about sanctification is also noted by Eastwood Presbyterian Church in their formal contention ( http://goo.gl/rODyO ) against Sonship theology: “Further, we think Sonship makes a serious exegetical error in its dealings with the book of Galatians: Sonship wrongly identifies the Galatian problem as one dealing with sanctification instead of justification.” In his message, Carson relates Galatians to how we live as Christians, but cleverly calls it justification (to match Paul’s terminology) as if works can only be classified in the justification category. However, his subject matter is clearly that of which would be placed in the regeneration / sanctification category.
Carson’s close association with Horton should be noted as well because Horton is more forthright in how he propagates their Quietist doctrine: http://goo.gl/y03xn
Paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 7: The 5 Points of Your New Calvinist Arrogance
Point One. Your Name: It insinuates that you’re the new and improved version of “old” Calvinism. Which is not only arrogant, but a lie as well.
Point Two. Your apologetics: You believe that you preach the only true gospel. One example would be what Michael Horton wrote on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” where he states that any separation of justification and sanctification results in the lose of BOTH. The synthesis of the two is the crux of the New Calvinist gospel.
Point Three. Your hermeneutic: One of your mantras plainly states how ALL people approach the Bible. The judgment is that NOBODY approaches the Bible with an open mind. One of your haughty teachers states it this way, “How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have ‘tilts’ that may or may not be known to us.” And I will give you three wild guesses as to who can lead us in the right direction! Basically, New Calvinist leaders teach their followers that they have an inability to properly ascertain truth; or at the very least, should ALWAYS be in doubt of what they have read or studied. As I have said before and will say again, this shows New Calvinism’s kinship to postmodern thought which devalues the ability to know absolute truth absolutely. But more to the point, it dogmatically proclaims a restriction on the ability of others to understand the word of God on their own.
Point Four. Your Theology: Your view of law and gospel states that you are “free” from the law while EVERY other Christian who believes the law has a role in sanctification is still IN BONDAGE, ie., you are free and we are still in bondage. Gag, it’s not only arrogant, it’s also a lie.
Point Five: Your eschatology: You have informed Christ that He has low self-esteem, and you have fixed that for Him by making every verse in the Bible about Him and deemphasizing “an issue about a sliver of geography that eclipses Christ.” How dismayed you will be when he doesn’t thank you at the judgment.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 6: Can Christian Women Gone Wild Save Us From New Calvinism?
I have shared my theory in other posts that contemporary antinomians are like serial criminals. Not in essence of being actual criminals, but in their deep-seated desire to get caught. You have seen the plot in movies—serial criminals always dropping catch me if you can hints to the police. At least two antinomians of our day, Tullian Tchividjian and John Piper, are good examples of this. But first, let me say that I realize that I am one of the very few people around who equate Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology ( Tim Keller, a significant forerunner of Sonship theology, is one of the founders of TGC) / the gospel-driven life with antinomianism. However, my reasoning is simple; if we are sanctified by justification, that excludes the law either by obligation or ability. Neither do I buy into the idea that thinking the law is good—is an acceptable replacement for an obligation to obey it. Also, the fact that I rubbed shoulders with six GS proponents for several years, and I’m privy to the fact that they bragged about being antinomians is not helpful to those who are trying to persuade me otherwise.
Hold on, my phone is ringing: “Oh! Hi honey. Uh—uh , ya, hmmm. I know sweety, we have discussed this before—getting to the point and such, ya, I will get to the women shortly. Ok, talk to you later, bye!”
Anyway, Tullian Tchividjian recently dropped a really big hint by promoting the idea that preachers should strive to be accused of antinomianism as a way to validate their preaching as having enough Jesus. When one, lone man protested, it made national headlines in Christian circles. But despite Tchividjian’s efforts, it didn’t work. The one, lone protestant focused on the accusation element without considering for a moment that maybe TT really is antinomian. Whew, that was a close one! Michael Horton followed the same week by accusing an accuser of accusing him of antinomianism when the accuser never even used the word in the accusation. Another hint? Hmmmm.
Also, we have John Piper, the First Pope of New Calvinism, continually drawing attention to himself (hints?) by promoting heretics and refusing to correct associates that use profanity in public, while notable evangelicals at large cover for him, and not for a moment considering that any of this has anything to do with the guy’s theology while teaching that what we believe always dictates what we do—unless you’re Pope John the First. A prime example of this is Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God conventions. But hello, when you believe that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, how can the particular elements of God’s truth really have that much significance? If Warren also believes that the Bible is a plenary gospel narrative, everything else is fair game—so why wouldn’t they hangout together? In fact, a reader sent me a quote by Tchividjian in regard to his defense of Piper for the invite by saying something like this: “All truth is God’s truth, even if it comes from Rick Warren.”
But what’s up with Piper being defended by the likes of Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right-hand guy, in the following post: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html ? “I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors.” Unbelievable. That is, until you read this in the same post:
“Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can’t touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper’s live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.
It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders’ roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper’s stature. These things ought not to be.”
First of all, God is sovereign; it is obvious that God planned before the foundation of the Earth for me to marry Susan and not the woman who called Piper a clown. Besides, in the spirit of defending people just because we like them, are we sure that wasn’t her way of saying Piper is a follower of Edmund Clowney? As I unravel the sorted history of New Calvinism, there is some question as to who was really the father of Sonship theology that is the fundamental basis for neo-Calvinism—Clowney, or John “Jack” Miller. Clowney wrote Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, and Christian Meditation. Any of those themes sound familiar in Piper’s teachings? But if that’s not the case, to Phil Johnson’s point, how dare that woomun call out a man of “Piper’s stature” (did he really say that? Let me check again.Yep, he sure did). Well, that pretty much says it all—if one of the who’s who of the evangelical world teaches error, the uneducated book-buying peasants of American church culture need to keep their mouths shut and submit to the “ruling elders.” Worse yet, if not unthinkable, is the idea that one of the woomun peasants would speak out!
If Phil would check Acts 17:11: the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for vetting Paul’s (the apostle) teachings and no gender is mentioned. In fact, verse 12 seems to indicate women were among them. And I know this is difficult for Phil, but John Piper is no apostle Paul. Furthermore, Priscilla and Aquila both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26), and I doubt Piper is an Apollos as well. As far as Phil’s citing of 1Timothy 2:12, because of 1Corinthians 14:34, I would think Paul is referring to the corporate setting, and not the milieu of life in general. Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, agrees; see his comments on 1Timothy 2:12 in his Bible Commentary, page 1783. He states the following: “He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3,4).” John’s over the Seminary and Phil’s over other stuff, right?
Moreover, now that we have established that women can callout man-leaders of high stature, Phil apparently deleted a woman who was dead-on regarding Piper taking a permanent sabbatical. Piper took an eight-month sabbatical for beyond unbiblical reasons. An eight-month, paid sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.”? And the obvious logical conclusion as follows: an eight-month sabbatical instead of being counseled by his own elders; where is all of that in the Bible? Add to that his announcement that he is hoping to remain pastor there five years after returning from his sabbatical. The lady is absolutely right, why not just retire and be done with it? And by the way, HOW DO YOU PREDETERMINE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ELIMINATE “SEVERAL SPECIES OF HEART IDOLS”? ARE THEY THE EIGHT-MONTH TYPE? Have we lost our minds?
Phil also wrote: “It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women….” Yes, discerning Christian woman gone wild, and thank goodness for them. Phil sates that it is mostly women who are speaking up and calling for leaders to be held accountable. Sad. And the women folk are right about something else: something can be done about it; separation, not inviting them to conferences (Matthew 18:17). Rejection, not fellowship (Titus 3:10 Rom 16:17,18), Rebuke, not excuses (1Timothy 5:19).
John Piper is one of the featured speakers at this years TGC conference in Chicago. Who knows what hint he will drop this time around. Will some Christian woman gone wild have to satisfy his deep-seated desire to be exposed? Can Christian women gone wild save the church from New Calvinism? Stay tuned.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 5: Poke, Poke, Michael Horton?!!
This series of posts are about The Gospel Coalition and their upcoming national conference in Chicago. Most of my material is coming from their website: thesonshipcoalition.org. Just about everywhere you poke the website is post material. After answering a good question by a reader this morning, I thought to myself, “Hmmm, if Michael Horton was speaking at the TGC [hereafter TSC], my reply would make a relevant post. Funny how Horton believes the same thing as those other guys but they never hangout together,” I said to myself. Later in the day, I was poking around the website and discovered that the White Horse Inn radio program hosted by Horton is having a live presentation at the TSC conference! That was easy.
The reader used a quote from Horton’s other venture, Modern Reformation. Horton thinks we need a modern reformation because most evangelicals are going to hell because, like JC Ryle, BB Warfield, RC Sproul, and many others, we believe that we exercise our own efforts in janctification (that’s the hybrid word for justification and sanctification which they all teach is the same thing, pronounced: jay-n’ku-fi-cation).
So first, the question:
“So, help me understand. I pulled the following quote from an article published in Modern Reformation [MR], posted here, http://www.ouruf.org/d/cvt_sanctification.pdf. Why are you so against this way of thinking about the Christian life. If I am not motivated to obey the commands of scripture by the fact that I am already justified, then what would you suggest should be my motivation?
[The Horton quote]: ‘I began to see that we stand before God today as righteous as we ever will be, even in heaven, because he has clothed us with the righteousness of his Son. Therefore, I don’t have to perform to be accepted by God. Now I am free to obey him and serve him because I am already accepted in Christ (see Rom. 8:1). My driving motivation now is not guilt but gratitude.’”
And my answer:
Great question. One: Modern Reformation presents “gratitude” as the primary motivation for obedience to the exclusion of almost everything else. Second point under One: supposedly, our gratitude is increased by pondering / contemplating / meditating on the “gospel” or works of Christ which results in obedience that is qualified as acceptable before God because it is accompanied by joy, and a willing spirit. This is exactly what John Piper believes also; the moral character of obedience is ALWAYS determined by joy. Both of these points are indicative of Quietist, contemplative spirituality that Matt mentioned in the comment section of the other post.
Two: “I began to see that we stand before God today as righteous as we ever will be, even in heaven, because he has clothed us with the righteousness of his Son.” This is true, but MR believes that any attempt on our part to apply that righteousness horizontally is to take away from Christ’ righteousness that has been granted to us. This error is very subtle and is clothed in truth. We are not only righteous positionally, but we are also enabled to be righteous practically. It is up to us to “put on” the righteousness we have been given and to “put off” the remnant of sin left in our mortal bodies (Eph 4:20-24). This process will be EXPERIENCED IN A MYRIAD OF WAYS and will use a wide range of spiritual weapons granted to us, NOT JUST an endeavoring to be thankful for what Christ has done for us. In fact, making use of our complete arsenal is what will lead to deeper gratitude, not the limitation thereof. Paul said to put on the “full armor of God.”
But now let me hasten to reference what I said above (“MR believes that any attempt on our part to apply that righteousness horizontally is to take away from Christ’ righteousness that has been granted to us.”): On page 62 of “Christless Christianity” M. Horton says that spiritual growth only takes place when we, like unbelievers as well, “encounter the gospel afresh.” In other words, contemplation on the gospel is the only thing that produces spiritual growth.
Furthermore, this eliminates the use of Scripture for instruction because the Spirit only works “through the gospel.” This is known as the “Christocentric” or Gospel-centric hermeneutic. Also, on pages 189-191 of the same book, Horton propagates the idea that corporate worship is strictly a contemplative affair and that we are a valley of dead bones coming to receive life through the corporate presentation of the gospel and sacraments. Of course, this is a blatant contradiction of Hebrews 10:23-25. In addition, on pages 117-119, Horton says that any attempt on our part to be a testimony with our good works (as Christians) is an attempt to “be the gospel” rather than presenting the gospel. In other words, our own efforts in evangelism is an attempt t to replace the works of Christ with our works. Of course, this is a blatant contradiction to Matthew 5:16 and 1Peter 3:1,2.
Three: “Therefore, I don’t have to perform to be accepted by God.” No, not for justification, but we need to dependently perform in sanctification in order to “PLEASE God” (2Cor 5:9). Note 2Cor 5:9 carefully–for crying out loud, it will even be our goal in heaven to please Him–except we will be unhindered by the flesh, but it will be no less us obeying Him than now, just more, and too perfection. Christ will not be obeying for us in heaven while we please Him there because we will be “like Him.” Neither does He obey for us now, though no doubt, we need to depend on His strength and knowledge to do so, but we are definitely WORKING with God (1Cor 3:9 1Thess 3:2). But Horton believes that justification and sanctification are the same thing. Therefore, any effort to be “accepted”(a salvation concept) by Him in sanctification (a misnomer) equals an effort to be justified by Him as well. This is very subtle and deceptive. However, he states plainly on page 62 in “Christless Christianity” that any effort to grow spiritually apart from contemplation on the gospel will result “in the LOSS of BOTH.” Both what? Answer: both justification and sanctification; ie, your lost!
Four: The Bible designates several other motivations for obedience other than gratitude. Let’s start with MR’s use of guilt because they / Horton know that our society has been conditioned to view guilt as an ill motivation or bad thing. “My driving motivation now is not guilt but gratitude.” This statement insinuates that the sum of sanctification is either / or. Not so. The apostle Paul instructed Timothy to “Keep a clear conscience before God” (1Tim 1:5, 1:19, 3:9, 4:2, 2Tim 1:3). Clearly, one of the goals in sanctification is the consideration and motivation to KEEP a clear conscience. Secondly, under Four, fear of discipline is used to motivate (Acts 5:10-16 1Thess 4:6 1Tim 5:20). Thirdly, the awesome motivation to discipline self to prevent the Lord’s discipline. What a wonderful motivation / promise from our Lord! (1Cor 11:27-32). Fourthly, we are motivated by being promised blessings IN (a preposition) the DOING, (James 1:25) not IN CONTEMPLATION.
Fifthly, God motivates us to good works via REWARDS. Really, hundreds of verses could be cited to make this point, but I will mention Matthew 6:6. Also note that contemplation is not the cure for hypocritical prayer in the context of Jesus’ counsel here, but the practice of private prayer. I will stop here as the biblical points that could be cited on this are endless, but let me say that I am very concerned with contemplation replacing biblical instruction in regard to helping Christians with serious life problems, and being complete before the Lord, lacking nothing (2Timothy 3:16).
Five: MR fails to recognize the all important biblical concept of self-sacrifice. Often, our faith will drag ourselves kicking and screaming into obedience in order to please God; and the belief that blessings will be our reward, though delayed for the time-being. Joy does not always walk with obedience at every moment. In fact, faith often does not care about self at all, but rather takes pleasure in the fact that God is pleased regardless of how we feel at the time. Here, beating our bodies into subjection and self-death is the motivation / goal. Do we always seek to please God because we are mindful of his sacrifice? Or is it our love for Him that is many faceted with gratitude included?
Six: Gratitude alone does not bring us near to God; “adding” to our faith does (2Peter 1:5-11).
Bottom line: The MR quote above is fraught with deception. Contemplative spirituality is a roadway to destruction.
paul
No, No, No, Paul Washer Doesn’t Think You’re Lost Because of That, He Thinks you’re Lost Because You’re an Evangelical
I know this is all surreal, so let’s backup and take a look at what orthodox Christians believe. In what Dr. Harold L. Wilmington called “One of the best outlined, one-volume books on theology in print,” Floyd Barackman, a Reformed Baptist, writes the following on regeneration: “This concerns our being made spiritually alive and our having a new relationship with God” (Practical Christian Theology p.315). On justification, he writes:” Justification is the act of God whereby He acquits the gospel believer of the divine verdict of condemnation and declares him to be righteous. The unsaved person’s need for justification is seen in his condemnation by God and his lack of acceptable righteousness” (p.303).
While Barackman has plenty to say in the book about election (which he strongly advocates), he states the following regarding the practical application of regeneration: “Being members of God’s family and subjects of His kingdom (Jn. 1:12; Col. 1:13), we have the duty of learning His will and truth (Eph. 5:17; Ps. 1:1-3), walking in His will and fellowship (1Jn. 1:17), depending upon His provision and care (yet, He will not do for us what we can do for ourselves, 1Pet. 5:7; Mt. 6:8, 25-34), and yielding to His discipline (Heb. 121-15).
Dr. Jay E. Adams, who has received his share of criticism over the years, but has never been accused of being unorthodox as far as I know, writes the following in his critique of Sonship theology (GS’s mother) on page 35 of Biblical Sonship regarding regeneration: “Though the Spirit produces fruit, He does it through, and not apart from, human effort (which He initiates and sustains). This is clear from the fact that Christians themselves are commanded to become involved in the ‘pursuit of fruit’—the very same fruit that is said to be the fruit of the Spirit [let me add this to Jay’s statement: one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control]. This pursuit is real, involving biblical study and struggles with sin that issue in failures and successes.”
It is not my intention to write a book here, though one could, but I would also add some quotations from JC Ryle on this subject:
“But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith….in justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification [to set apart through regeneration] the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse” (Scriptural Holiness: Introduction).
Bottom line: a colaboring with God and man in regeneration has been the orthadox view from the beginning: “….and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith” (1Thess. 3:2 ESV). “For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building” (1Cor. 3:9 ESV).
Now enter “New Calvinism,” driven primarily by Gospel Sanctification or Sonship theology. It teaches sanctification and regeneration by faith alone. And: holds that any belief of colaboring in regeneration is the same as colaboring in justification. Granted, working for our legal decree (justification) from God is a huge problem because in order for that to be true, God would have to agree with us that we have the same righteousness Christ has based on our own efforts. This, of course, is an absurd notion, and damning.
But let’s be clear: GS proponents believe that the orthodox view of dependant colaboring in regeneration is synonymous with a colaboring for justification which is works salvation and a false gospel. They also believe that we are regenerated by contemplating the same gospel that saved us, over, and over, again. In the same way that we were saved by faith and repentance alone, we can only be regenerated by faith and repentance alone like we were for justification. This basic belief leads to all kinds of questionable theology, like the total depravity of the saints. Think about it, if you need the gospel everyday just as much as you did when you were saved, you must be no better than you were in regard to spiritual life before salvation, right? In fact, advocates of GS often insinuate that we are resaved daily, or each time we repent. Michael Horton has said that we only receive spiritual life when we “experience the gospel afresh.” Listen to me please, this doctrine is a serious departure from orthodoxy; God’s people must arise and confront it. Again, Adams writes the following on page 36 of Biblical Sonship: “Plainly, the error of substituting justification for regeneration (quickening) is at the heart of the difficulty that Sonship [and Gospel Sanctification] presents to the Christian. It fails to explain what God has done for him in making him a new creation and how he may conform to the will of God.”
Now, regarding Paul Washer. It would seem that the main thrust of his preaching is against easy believe-ism—Christians who make a profession of faith and don’t repent of anything. It would seem as such, but that’s not true. Washer, a Baptist (Southern, I think), as I am also, doesn’t believe that even “15% of my Baptist brethren are saved.” But easy believe-ism is NOT really the issue with Washer as many suppose: his real issue echoes all the other GS advocates; their issue is the separation of justification and sanctification being a false gospel. Supposedly, that’s why the vast majority of evangelicals are lost. Hence, we have the arrogant mentality on display that men like Washer are on the cutting edge of a new, radical reformation—add nausea. This is the idea put forth by John Piper in the video, The Gospel in 6 Minutes. Not to be outdone, Washer has a video out named The Gospel in 5 Minutes. The theme of both are the same; these men are modern-day Noahians preaching doom to the masses, gag. The fact that Michael Horton’s ministry is named, “Modern Reformation” is no accident as well.
I have written extensively in order to make my case for Piper and Horton, now I will state my case for Washer. In the statement of faith posted on the Heart Cry Missionary Society website of which Washer is the director, regarding regeneration, we read the following: “Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who makes alive those who are dead in trespasses and sins, enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.”
Note that this statement clearly says that regeneration is God’s work “alone.” Also note that the ongoing work of regeneration is for salvation: “savingly.” Furthermore, in Washer’s Gospel 101, he states the following:
“In this simple phrase, we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is “the” message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Uh, need I say more? Therefore, many things that Washer says that could be taken different ways must be interpreted through his theology. For instance, he says in The Gospel in 5 Minutes that Christians must continue in “faith and repentance.” If you didn’t know his theology, you would think: “Yes I agree, true Christians will continue to demonstrate the fruit of faith in God and the practice of 1John 1:9 (as well as other things that I am sure he would include, that statement is just a thumbnail sketch of perseverance).” But in fact, he is talking about faith and repentance only as a way of yielding to the Spirit for purposes of Christ obeying for us. Remember, he said regeneration is a work of God “ALONE.” Right? However, one might keep in mind that Christ clearly made a distinction between 1John 1:9 repentance and repentance unto salvation (John 13: 8-11).
Washer’s passion and his missionary works do not impress me; it is a zeal that is not according to knowledge. He plainly teaches a false doctrine and should be rejected by Christians at large.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment