Paul’s Gospel Treatise to the Romans: Intelligent Evangelism
“To separate law and gospel is to separate our ability as believers to love the Lord. Any gospel that separates law and gospel is a gospel written by the scribes of hell.”
This is our fourth study in the book of Romans, and we now begin to delve into what Paul stated he was eager to do: preach the gospel to those in Rome. Note 1:14,
I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. 15 So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.
Paul then launches into the gospel in the next verse:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
It’s amazing in our day; I constantly find myself in conversations with others discussing whether or not the gospel is “more than the death, burial, and resurrection.” Is the gospel all about the cross, or does it include a wider body of God’s truth? How amazing it is to consider the confusion in our day regarding this fundamental question. Two thousand years later, most Christians are not sure what the gospel is. No wonder evangelism is lacking.
In regard to this question, you be the judge: Paul’s gospel treatise spans from Romans 1:16 – 15:21, and obviously includes many issues other than the cross. This treatise is a major centerpiece of God’s world view. In sharing this treatise with the Romans by letter, Paul becomes overwhelmed by its wisdom and states:
Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
Yes, let us take careful note as we proceed. This is where we will learn God’s “riches,” “wisdom,” “knowledge,” “judgments,” and “ways” that are essential for living. Why, and how God brings things about are certainly beyond knowing in many cases, but what we learn about Him and His ways attests to the greatness behind it. Amazement always has an element of definitive understanding. Sometimes, even humans do things that provokes a, “How did you do that?!” Or, “How did you come up with such a great idea?” With God, these are often mysteries that belong to Him alone.
Funny, Christians wonder why the world is not wowed by the simplistic. Sure, we all like to push the easy button, but people usually have enough common sense to know that deep problems are not solved by clichés, truisms, and mantras. New Christians persevere for a time with the blank-stare response to canned gospel presentations, but eventually stop bringing it up. The fact is, we share what we are excited about, and for some reason we aren’t excited about getting people saved. Why is that? Simple: the gospel hasn’t exactly created any fireworks in our own life.
Furthermore, it hasn’t changed our own life to the point where it would make us feel guilty in not sharing it. Case in point:
2 Kings 7:3 – Now there were four men who were lepers at the entrance to the gate. And they said to one another, “Why are we sitting here until we die? 4 If we say, ‘Let us enter the city,’ the famine is in the city, and we shall die there. And if we sit here, we die also. So now come, let us go over to the camp of the Syrians. If they spare our lives we shall live, and if they kill us we shall but die.”
5 So they arose at twilight to go to the camp of the Syrians. But when they came to the edge of the camp of the Syrians, behold, there was no one there. 6 For the Lord had made the army of the Syrians hear the sound of chariots and of horses, the sound of a great army, so that they said to one another, “Behold, the king of Israel has hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of Egypt to come against us.”
7 So they fled away in the twilight and abandoned their tents, their horses, and their donkeys, leaving the camp as it was, and fled for their lives. 8 And when these lepers came to the edge of the camp, they went into a tent and ate and drank, and they carried off silver and gold and clothing and went and hid them. Then they came back and entered another tent and carried off things from it and went and hid them.
9 Then they said to one another, “We are not doing right. This day is a day of good news. If we are silent and wait until the morning light, punishment will overtake us. Now therefore come; let us go and tell the king’s household.” 10 So they came and called to the gatekeepers of the city and told them, “We came to the camp of the Syrians, and behold, there was no one to be seen or heard there, nothing but the horses tied and the donkeys tied and the tents as they were.” 11 Then the gatekeepers called out, and it was told within the king’s household.
The find by the lepers, notably called “good news,” had such a positive impact on their lives that they were compelled to share it with those who were perishing, even to the point of fearing retribution by God for depraved indifference. Do contemporary Christians view their silence in regard to the good news as depraved indifference?
Well, yes. In fact, we are taught in our day that the saved are still totally depraved. One would assume that being ok with depraved indifference would be part and parcel with that. The idea that we can have “life, and have it more abundantly” is even deemed as “more bad news” because we have to “know more, do more, and try harder.” Apparently, our own supposed total depravity is good news.
Paul was not ashamed of the gospel. Why? Because he experienced the power of it. Where is the power of it in our day? Never in the history of the church has the cross been lifted higher via John Piper’s gospel in one sentence, CJ Mahaney’s five-word gospel, and Paul Washer’s gospel in five minutes. Where’s the revival? Does Paul begin here to share the knowledge that energized his soul to be zealous for the gospel? Yes, I think that is the case.
From my preparation for this series, I have concluded that most Christians, including myself, hold to a dumbed-down gospel. Paul begins his gospel treatise by stating that the gospel is the power of God to everyone who “believes.” As we saw in our previous studies, “believe” in biblical terms is absolutely synonymous with obedience. A call to salvation is a call to “obey the gospel,” “obey the truth,” “love the truth,” and “obey the word.”
In one way or the other, this is given lip service, and even if we do present the gospel, belief in the works of Christ is presented as a mere mental ascent to the facts of the gospel. Others exclude repentance and obedience believing that the mental ascent will naturally lead to obedience, and the recipient of the gospel is the last to know that since Jesus is going to be obeying for them anyways. Supposedly.
It’s not that we are saved by obeying, but we are saved by believing which carries the idea of repentance. Repentance is a change of mind and a determined decision to take one’s life in a different direction. In fact, the first century church was known as “the Way”:
Acts 9:2
and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Acts 19:9
But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus.
Acts 19:23
About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way.
Acts 22:4
I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,
Acts 24:14
But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets,
Acts 24:22
But Felix, having a rather accurate knowledge of the Way, put them off, saying, “When Lysias the tribune comes down, I will decide your case.”
It’s not the perfection; it’s the direction, though of course perfection is the goal. All house framers, lost or saved, know that the houses they frame are not going to be perfect by virtue of the fact that no 2×4 piece of lumber is perfect to begin with. But is perfection the goal? I hope so. An attitude that strives for perfection is a prerequisite to getting the contract. Christ’s indictment of the Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount was a “relaxing of the least of one of these commandments.”
Many, many in our day teach that Christ’s call to be perfect in that sermon is a standard of justification that must be retained in order to keep our just standing before God, and gee whiz, since we can’t be perfect, Jesus must have been calling us to a gospel where He actively maintains the law for us until we get to heaven. This can do no other than result in what Christ warned against in the same context: a relaxing of the law. Christ created us and certainly knows how to communicate with us. Why would He play word games on this most urgent question? If the maintaining of salvation requires Him to obey for us, why wouldn’t He simply say so?
No, our role in salvation is a decision to take our life in a different “Way”—a decision to obey Christ when He said, “follow me.” And this is the way it has always been. Old Testament saints were not saved any differently. This goes hand in hand with the fact that believers prior to the cross were empowered to live faithfully through the new birth. Before Christ went to the cross, he told Nicodemus: “You must be born again.” In Romans 1:17, Paul quotes the obscure book of Habakkuk as an authority for his point: “The righteous shall live by faith” (2:4), but this doesn’t mean that we live by faith alone—the whole theme of the book of James was written to refute that idea.
Works don’t save us; it is just simply what faith has determined to do from the beginning. It is an exercise of the will that God has given us. Just because God has given us the will does not mean that we have no striving in the new Way. Habakkuk used the word emunah translated “faith” in the English. It means “faithfully.” Even in the Old Testament, saints were declared righteous and lived “faithfully.” The word also has the idea of “truth” and moral fidelity. This is what Paul had in mind when he cited Hab. 2:4. The gospel is the power of God for a new Way.
But is God’s power demonstrated through a misrepresentation of what faith is? I think not.
And just as it has always been, faith is a decision to obey the gospel (2Thess. 1:8). It is a decision to obey truth. The saved heart has been infused with a love for the truth (2Thess. 2:10). It is a continuous striving to “obey the gospel” because the gospel is a body of truth that includes the cross, but is not the summation thereof. When the cross is the summation of all gospel, we have the contemporary gospel of “intelligent repentance.” I will address the difference in the conclusion.
The Hebrew writer notes the same gospel that was preached to the Israelites during the exodus is now preached to us (Hebrews 4:2). This is an astounding text, and its sting is removed in many English translations by removing the definitive “the” gospel and replacing it with, “For good news came to us just as it did them.” And in the same context, the following verse is absolutely stunning:
Heb. 3:16 – For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses? 17 And with whom was he provoked for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 So we see that they were unable to enter because of unbelief.
Again, we see the correlation between obedience and belief as illustrated by the Hebrew writer via the antithesis. But what is it that they did not obey?
Heb. 4:1 – Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
“Therefore” is a conjunction that takes us back to the previous point in 3:16-19. We enter the rest by obeying the gospel. We enter the rest by agreeing to follow the whole counsel of God’s truth. A different Way. The Way. The truth, and the life, and life more abundant.
But when did Moses preach the gospel to the Israelites that he led out of Egypt? The apostle Peter alludes to it in:
1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
What sprinkling of blood is Peter talking about? This is a truth that decimates a massive body of theology that would separate law and gospel. Peter is speaking to the issuing of the law on Mount Sinai. In response to the people committing to obey, Moses sprinkled them with the blood:
Exodus 24:3 – Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord and all the rules. And all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words that the Lord has spoken we will do.” 4 And Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. He rose early in the morning and built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. 5 And he sent young men of the people of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord. 6 And Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and half of the blood he threw against the altar.
7 Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it in the hearing of the people. And they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient.” 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.”
Peter attributes that same commitment at Mount Sinai to the same gospel of our day. There is no difference. Neither did the Israelites assume their commitment would result in perfect obedience. If we love Christ, we will strive to keep His commandments. Our own efforts and help from the Spirit is our God given ability to show our love to the Lord. Christ does not love Himself for us, it is our own love toward Him. It most certainly is not our love if it isn’t our own effort. Those who warn against a gospel that obeys the Lord in “our own efforts” deny that we love the Lord with our own sincere obedience—His empowerment notwithstanding, but enabling and encouraging with all blessings.
Much will be learned in our study, Lord willing, about the relationship of law and gospel. There is a very important difference in the relationship of the law in regard to the lost verses the saved. The lost cannot love the Lord by keeping the law, but the saved most certainly can, and not only that, such defines the very reality of their true salvation—it is a new WAY. Even regarding the saints of old, a commitment to the law resulted in the sprinkling of the righteous blood of Christ. It answered God’s call to:
Deuteronomy 11:1
You shall therefore love the Lord your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always.
To separate law and gospel is to separate our ability as believers to love the Lord. Any gospel that separates law and gospel is a gospel written by the scribes of hell. It beckons mankind to ignore a call to paint the doorpost and header with the blood of the lamb that the death angel would pass by. Obedience and Christ’s saving blood cannot be separated.
Obedience to the gospel justified us, and the same obedience to the gospel sanctifies us, but justification and sanctification are not the same.
Evangelism in our day has no power because it doesn’t even understand what biblical believing is, and moreover, doesn’t understand the difference between justification and sanctification. The power of the gospel is revealed “faith to faith” and exhibited by the righteousness of God in us.
But it must be a faith based on the truth. This is our opportunity to be taught that truth by the apostle Paul. His words speak from the grave. Let us come and see as free Bereans.
We will learn more about the differences between justification and sanctification as we progress. Also, the relationship of law and gospel will be articulated by the apostle. But how valuable is our understanding of mankind in regard to presenting the gospel? Is an in-depth knowledge of mankind invaluable to our gospel presentation? One would think. Is our gospel presentations without power because of an ineffective view and understanding of mankind?
Paul addresses this issue next. The truth about what believing faith is, the gospel’s relationship to the law, and the difference between justification and sanctification are just a few of the critical issues regarding the gospel that we will be learning about.
Another New Calvinist Lie via Chad Bresson: We Aren’t Postmodern and the Emergent Church is Bad and We are Good
I guess it goes along with being antinomian; New Calvinists constantly lie about many things. In fact, I wonder if they ever tell the truth about anything. New Calvinism dominates the present evangelical landscape because their theological framework invented by a Seventh-Day Adventist (who is now an atheist) is a powerful concept that sells. Robert Brinsmead claimed that he discovered the lost gospel of the Reformation and Reformed folks saw what the supposed finding was doing to the SDA: reforming it. Brinsmead’s Awakening movement via his centrality of the objective gospel (COGOUS) doctrine was turning the SDA upside down. The results were therefore evident, and it had a Reformed label, so the masses have been jumping on the new reformation bandwagon ever since. Many of the elements that make this doctrine attractive to our present culture will be discussed in the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism.
New Calvinists avoid historical dots that could connect them back to Brinsmead like the Bubonic Plague, and one way of doing that is pretending like you oppose certain dots. Therefore, The dots that they disparage the most are New Covenant Theology (NCT) and the Emergent Church (EU). New Calvinists such as DA Carson stay aloof from NCT, but support it behind the scenes. Brinsmead was a close friend with the father of NCT, Jon Zens, and Brinsmead contributed significantly to the formation of the doctrine. Therefore, pigs will fly before any NCT guys will be invited to one of the big New Calvinist dances, but Carson regularly speaks at NCT conferences.
Likewise, Sonship Theology which was founded on Brinsmead’s COGOUS intermarried with the EC family, so the EC, like Jon Zens, is only one step removed from Brinsmead and his theological think tank that launched present-day New Calvinism: the Australian Form. The Forum may have also influenced the EC which originated in Australia/UK in 1992 and arrived in the US around 1998. Even though New Calvinists such as John Piper associate with EC proponents like Mark Driscoll on a continual basis, and both groups function by the same doctrine (COGOUS, also known as Gospel Sanctification), New Calvinists continually fustigate the EC. The Piper/Driscoll relationship is condoned because Driscoll is supposedly a different kind of Emergent species (http://wp.me/pmd7S-16r).
One New Calvinist “church” that partakes in this deception at every opportunity is Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. A staff elder, Chad Bresson, wrote an article on his blog (a blog dedicated to NCT ) entitled, “The Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation because the resurrection is of such” (Vossed World blog: archives; July 19, 2006). Bresson begins the post with the following:
A supporter of the emergent church posted over at Steve Camp’s blog the following comments:
1. Revelation does not refer to the Bible, it is rather God’s activity in history.
2. Revelation is dynamic and personal, not static propositional.
3. Scripture is a meta-narrative, and by this nature is not a propositional document for us
to pin down all the rules to obey and doctrines to believe.
4. Passages are not always easily discerned for God’s desired message for the Church.
5. Texts may simply indicate direction, not neat and orderly systematic doctrine.
All of these points are either outright false or are only partly true. They represent what is of major concern to many who have observed the development of the emerging church.
These five tenets of EC interpretation, for all practical purposes, are the like hermeneutics of New Calvinism despite Bresson’s disingenuous harpings. Bresson, usually accustomed to linguistic drones of ten-thousand words or more, writes a paragraph or two for each proposition that disputes propositional truth, and I will rebut his deceptive rebuttal of his theological kissing-cousin’s comment. Bresson begins by addressing the first tenet:
God[‘s] activity in history through Christ *resulted in* the Bible. The Bible is God’s *written* revelation to man, and thus the sixty six books of the Bible given to us by the Holy Spirit constitute the plenary (inspired equally in all parts) Word of God (1 Corinthians 2:7-14; 2 Peter 1:20-21). The Word of God is an objective, propositional revelation (1 Thessalonians 2:13; 1 Corinthians 2:13), verbally inspired in every word (2 Timothy 3:16), absolutely inerrant in the original documents, infallible, and God breathed. They are fully self-authenticating, not relying on any external proof for their claims. Since all of Scripture is spoken by God, all of Scripture must be “unlying,” just as God himself is: there can be no untruthfulness in Scripture (2 Sam. 7:28; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). Because God is the Bible’s author, we are to accept its authority and submit ourselves to it in faith (2 Pet. 1:19,21, 2 Tim. 3:16, 1 John 5:9, 1 Thess. 2:13).
As I will demonstrate, New Calvinists end up in the same place as the EC on this issue. And remember, the staple doctrine of New Calvinism and the EU is one and the same: Gospel Sanctification. This is plainly irrefutable. The EU is most prevalent in American church culture through Acts 29 and World Harvest Missions which were both spawned by the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Dr. Miller originally coined the New Calvinist slogans, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” and its accompaniment, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.” The former understudies of Dr. Miller and the gatekeepers of Sonship theology after Miller’s passing, David Powlison and Tim Keller, are major figures in the New Calvinist clan.
Regardless of how orthodox Bresson’s opening statement is, his fingers are crossed behind his back with the first ten words: “God[‘s] activity in history through Christ *resulted in* the Bible.” Though the more fringe elements of the EC may think specific revelation can be found outside of the Bible, note that Bresson also states that the Bible is primarily a historical document about Christ. Specifically, a meta-narrative about the gospel, and the gospel only for meditation purposes. All of the rest affirming the accuracy of the Bible is regarding its accuracy for that purpose only. The pastor/teacher of Clearcreek states the following on this point:
May we be transformed by seeing the glory of Christ all through the Bible. The transforming power of beholding Christ emerges from the pages of the whole Bible. We are transformed from glory to glory as we see Him there. Want to grow and change? Want to reflect Christ to others? Gaze on Him in the pages of your Bible (Russ Kennedy: The Fading Glory, 2Corinthians 2:14-3:18).
Furthermore, Bresson posted an excerpt from Robert Brinsmead on his blog to make the point that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Scriptures are seen through the prism of the gospel and used for that purpose alone (Vossed World blog: archives; July 17, 2008).
Bresson continues to use orthodoxy to deceive:
God’s Word is sufficient for all things pertaining to life and godliness, because Christ, THE WORD, is sufficient (Eph. 1:3, 23; Deut. 8:3/Matthew 4:4/John 6:48-51; John 1:14,16). Because THE WORD is life himself (John 11:25, 14:6; Colossians 1:15-20), The Word is living and active in discerning and judging the actions and thoughts of men (Hebrews 4:12). Christ, as THE WORD, is Wisdom from God (1 Corinthians 1:30), which is *why* the word is sufficient for all of life (Psalm 119:105; Proverbs 2:6, 3:18; Colossians 3:16). Christ’s sufficiency for all of life is best summed up by the covenantal promise/fulfillment: Christ is our God and we are His people (Revelation 21:3,7). As THE WORD, Christ himself is the grace that is sufficient for us (2 Cor. 12:7-10; John 1:14, 16, 17).
After all of the unarguable truth and citation of Scriptures, Bresson once again has his fingers crossed behind his back with the last thirteen words: “As THE WORD, Christ himself is the grace that is sufficient for us.” Hence, Bresson parrots the same EC hermeneutic he claims to be refuting. Note tenet number two: “Revelation is dynamic and personal, not static propositional.” In fact, on the aforementioned post where he cites a long excerpt from a Brinsmead article, Bresson made the following comment:
John 1:1 tells us that Christ incarnated the very Word of God. Thus, the text… the Word… is both witness to and emanates from THE WORD. I should add that John 1:1 is also telling us that Christ *was* the very Word of God from the beginning. So… to draw a distinction between text and Person is a false dichotomy.
Exactly, and the EC crowd agrees, stating that the word is a person and not for the reason of determining propositional truth. I like to state it a different way for clarification; it’s about who Jesus is (or his “personhood”), and not about what He SAYS. Christ warned against such a mentality in Luke 11:26, 27. Clearcreek’s close relationship with Paul David Tripp should also be weighed in this discussion as well. Tripp, who has close ties to Clearcreek and speaks there often, stated the following on page 27 of How people Changed (2006):
Jesus comes to transform our entire being, not just our mind. He comes as a person, not as a cognitive concept that we insert into a new formula for life.
As noted in another post (http://wp.me/pmd7S-hc) here on PPT, Dr. Carol K. Tharp accuses Tripp of having a kinship to the emergent church because of his teachings in Broken Down House:
In these assertions, Tripp reveals his kinship with the emergent church. A belief held in common by emergent church leaders is their “eschatology of hope.” For example, Tony Jones says, “God’s promised future is good, and it awaits us, beckoning us forward … in a tractor beam of redemption and recreation … so we might as well cooperate.” Emergents Stanley Grenz and John R. Franke declare, “As God’s image bearers, we have a divinely given mandate to participate in God’s work of constructing a world in the present that reflects God’s own eschatological will for creation.”‘ Elsewhere, emergent church advocate Doug Pagitt claims, “When we employ creativity to make this world better, we participate with God in the re-creation of the world.”
In regard to tenet number three, Bresson embarks on the following diatribe:
All the words in Scripture are God’s words. To disbelieve or disobey any word of Scripture is to disbelieve or disobey God. The essence of the authority of Scripture is its ability to compel us to believe and to obey it and to make such belief and obedience equivalent to believing and obeying God himself. The word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures is the only rule of knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship of God, and is the only rule in which is contained the whole duty of man. The Scriptures have plainly recorded whatever is needful for us to know, believe, and practice. God’s word is the only rule of holiness and obedience for all saints, at all times, in all places to be observed (Col. 2:23; Matt 15:6,9; John 5:39, 2 Tim. 3:15,16,17; Isa. 8:20; Gal. 1:8,9; Acts 3:22,23).
In Bresson’s supposed rebuttal, he admits that the Scriptures are a meta-narrative, but argues that the narrative yields objective truth to be obeyed: see above and following:
While the scriptures inherently contain meta-narrative, the various narrative forms, using various Jewish literary genre, are themselves propositional in nature and scope…. And, because there is a common meta-narrative inherent to the whole of scripture (the redemptive story pointing forward to and fulfilled in Christ), it necessarily follows that there is a logical analogy to the whole of scripture which is to be exegeted and preached.
In other words, the concept is objective (the narrative is true and objective), but obviously yields subjective results because one has to interpret every verse of Scripture in a way that shows forth the gospel. But New Calvinists think that this approach is acceptable as long as the point made is a valid gospel outcome. The EC believes that both the narrative and the outcomes are subjective; New Calvinists claim that objective truth is possible while torturing every verse for a gospel outcome, which is highly doubtful. In other words, the results from both camps are the same: subjective.
In addition, the “obedience” Bresson refers to is New Calvinist “new obedience” (Christ obeys for us or obedience is the mere yielding to the evil realm or the gospel realm) which teaches against what Bresson seems to be saying. Where would I even begin to document New Calvinist teachers in regard to their devaluing of obedience as stated by tenet three? “Scripture is a meta-narrative, and by this nature is not a propositional document for us to pin down all the rules to obey and doctrines to believe.” Consider what the New Calvinists themselves write along these same lines:
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
Lastly, Bresson mentions another New Calvinist substitution for orthodox obedience that I haven’t fully put my mind around—this whole idea of Christians putting ourselves in, or participating in the gospel narrative: “These historical contexts presume an original audience with whom we participate in the same redemptive story.” Again, postmodern emergents (EC) take the same approach with a slightly different application. Note what John MacArthur writes in The Truth War: Quoting Brian McLaren, another proponent of the Emerging Church:
Getting it right’ is beside the point: the point is ‘being and doing good’ as followers of Jesus in our unique time and place, fitting in with the ongoing story of God’s saving love for planet Earth.’ All of that is an exemplary statement of the typical postmodern perspective. But the thing to notice here is that in McLaren’s system, orthodoxy is really all about practice, not about true beliefs (page 36).
So, on the one hand (New Calvinism), we supposedly put ourselves in the gospel narrative in a passive endeavor to manifest a redeemed realm. On the other hand (EU), we put ourselves in the subjective narrative as a form of obedience. What’s the difference? The bottom line: New Calvinists use an objective means of interpretation that leads to subjective, if not mystical results, though they lamely argue that the results are objective because only objective results can come from seeing the gospel in every verse of the Bible. The emergents are at least honest about the means and the results being subjective.
And honesty in and of itself is a good thing; those who follow you at least know what they are following. But the New Calvinist cartel will continue in pretending to be orthodox while confusing the issue by contending against other camps that really believe the same things.
paul
Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” Part 4: Mr. Holland Was For Obedience Before He was Against It, And The Sonship / AF Connection
On pages 46 through 56 (most of chapter 4), Holland makes a case that the book of Job is all about Christ. Of course, New Calvinist believe every verse in the Bible is about Christ so that’s no surprise. Though I believe his exegesis is a stretch to come to that conclusion, these pages are by far the less ghastly so far and have some merit. In addition to making this point, he seems to slightly redefine the word transcendence as primarily the difference between two things, rather than something that is superior or not confined by immanence. I know, this seems like nitpicking, but Holland seems to use his primary definition to make some sort of strict dichotomy between the Son and the Father that effects how we perceive the Trinity, and such dichotomies tend to make me suspicious. Not only that, it’s eerily similar to the “objective” part of COG (the centrality of the objective gospel) which teaches that gospel reality is completely outside of us. This can subtly set up a prism that requires all realities about the Father to be seen through the Son, rendering the Father as true, but insignificant when compared to Christ; and in fact, our biggest problem—with Christ coming to the rescue. Of course, there is some truth to that, but that approach also makes me uncomfortable with what seems like an unbalanced view of the Trinity that can lead to bad places.
Nevertheless, what follows is much easier to expound on. On page 59, Holland reiterates what makes GS what it is: contemplative spirituality. Holland states on page 59: “In other words, we see Christ now, and the more we know Him and the more we study Him, the more we become like the clear image we see of Him. Looking for [emphasis mine. This is supposedly what job one is for Christians when reading their Bible] and seeing and gazing [my emphasis] at the excellencies, the glories of Jesus leads to greater vision, sharper focus, deeper awareness of Jesus and His permanent abiding presence. It elevates the soul to a higher vantage point of worship. We must learn to stare at the Son of God such that we are blinded to all the allurements of the world! All encumbrances aside, all slack hardeness aside, everything aside but…Him.”
Along with this statement being a superb specimen of how GS instructs followers to read the Bible, looking for Jesus only; and specifically, his “excellencies” and “glories,” the statement shows the kinship between GS and Sonship Theology. In a book Jay Adams’ wrote to warn the church about Sonship, he wrote the following:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
And,
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Holland follows this up on page 60 and 61 with the usual GS slight of hand. On page 60, using John 14:21 as a point of reference, he makes several orthodox statements concerning obedience. He seems to be clearly saying that obedience is the gateway to a deeper love for Christ. He seems to be saying the same thing Christ is clearly saying in that text: obedience to Christ is synonymous with loving Him. In other words, obedience is a loving act (John 3:16).
I used to become perplexed by these sudden bursts of orthodoxy after reading page after page of “truth” seasoned with nuance because God’s people are not yet ready to accept that we have been supposedly living under a false gospel for the past 100 years. I calmly read pages 60-61 while enjoying a nice lunch Susan fixed for me. Two all beef patties smothered in pepper-jack cheese and jalapeños. No buns because I’m on a low-carb diet that is working fabulously (email me at pmd@inbox.com if you want the details). She also brought me a glass of tea sweetened with something other than sugar, but it was really good. Before I finished the last bite, Holland began to explain exactly what he means by “obedience” on page 61. He was for it on page 60, but on page 61, well, you see, what Jesus meant in John 14:21 is love and obedience are the same thing.
But you say: “Paul, that agrees with what you just said was orthodox!” Not exactly. I said that obedience is an act among many that is a demonstration of love. On page 61, Holland makes the point that they are the same thing, but obedience must be defined by love, and now we must ask ourselves what “love” is. Hmmmmm—get you hand on your wallet:
“So what does it mean to love Jesus? Yes, we’ve already seen obedience. That’s a given [I’m sure]. But [just like the “But”Light commercial: “Here we go!”] true Christians are distinguished from unbelievers not only by their obedience, but by their love for Christ. Let this question echo in your soul: Do you love Christ? Is He precious to you, as He was to Peter? Is He the hub of your faith and your life, [and here is the crux:] or have you made Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?”
NOTE, after saying obedience and love are intrinsically connected, he makes a dichotomy that is impossible to distinguish in real life. How can one possibly distinguish Godly obedience from making “Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?” It’s a false dichotomy that forces the reader to decide whether true love is a way of life or a “person to love.” And again, and again, regardless of a calling to live in a new way throughout Holy Writ, Holland does not qualify the statement.
HOWEVER, Holland then defines what this true love is on pages 61-67 after the pesky subject of obedience is relegated to its proper place in the back of the bus. He then breaks down a “biblical” definition of love into three categories: Love And Faith (p.61), Love And Understanding (p.64), and Love And Affections (p.66).
In the first segment, “Love And Faith,” Holland clearly shows this book’s kinship with the Australian Forum. I devote a whole chapter in my book, “Another Gospel” to Robert Brinsmead’s interpretive prism as taught by him and Paxton / Goldsworthy. Following this post, a full copy of that chapter can be viewed. On page 62, Holland describes faith as the “eye of the soul.” He then writes that Scripture is the lens used by faith and the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture for one purpose and one purpose only: “Suddenly the Bible comes alive and we see Christ’s excellence, His splendor!” Hence, this is the EXACT position of the AF: the Bible’s only purpose is to obtain a deeper knowledge of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit will not illuminate anything else but that. Holland writes on page 63: “There must be a faith that engages with God’s Word on Jesus and estimates it to be the most important information in the world” [which then becomes the interpretive mode of operation].
Therefore, the Bible is for the purpose of plunging the depths of seeing the glory of Christ and nothing else. Any other information in the Bible that seems to be contrary to that thesis is descriptions of what Christ has done and should teach us more about Him instead of being an instruction book for a different “way to live.” All of the commands in the Bible are meant to show us what Christ has done for us already, and to humble us because we can’t keep all of them perfectly anyway. As I heard one pastor say from a pulpit about three months ago: “You can’t keep all of God’s law anyway, so don’t even try.” Pondering the volume of commands should also drive us to the foot of the cross and more dependence on Christ. Supposedly.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that obedience is a natural result of “Staring At The Son” (the actual title of chapter 5). But how do we know when we are committing the horrible sin of “obeying Jesus in our own efforts?” Well, because it will FEEL like it—that’s how you supposedly know, and Holland emphasizes that point throughout the rest of chapter 5. Throughout the book, Holland reiterates the same worn-out GS points made by Francis Chan (“When it’s love, it feels like love”), John Piper (“Beholding as a way of becoming” and joy is synonymous with faith), Paul David Trip (Christians are still spiritually dead), and Michael Horton (we only grow spiritually when we “revisit the gospel afresh”). The following is the chapter of my future book where the AF view of interpretation is dealt with—which is the same approach propagated by Holland:
Francis Chan Not Sure That Hell Is Eternal Suffering
The Bible’s clear message of eternal torment for those who reject Christ poses a problem for New Calvinism’s doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. The most troubling aspect of GS is how John Piper’s contribution to the doctrine (Christian Hedonism) effects the all important presentation of the gospel. The need of repentance is not included for fear that the hearer would think that “they could do something to be saved.” Piper believes that gospel presentations must only include a description of the gospel as a treasure to be desired, and as such, saving faith will always be earmarked by joy. Likewise, Michael Horton describes any participation by us in the salvation process as “just more bad news” instead of good news. Hence, a call to repentance or a call to escape hell may cause a hearer to accept the gospel with wrong motives, making it unclear as to whether God was really at work in the decision.
So, the dilemma: should we include things that the Bible talks about in gospel presentations or not? And if not, what is the purpose for such information in the Christian life? Frankly, this is the problem with all false doctrines—proponents spend most of their time coming up with new explanations and answering hard questions. Who can deny that New Calvinism is constantly morphing?
But secondly, hell also brings up the whole issue of accepting what God says whether we like it or not. In other words, the whole concept of being obedient to the truth, but not liking it, and even having a distaste for it. However, also knowing that our distaste is due to our lack of understanding from God’s righteous perspective. This is obedience to the truth without the joy which runs afoul of Piper’s Christian Hedonism. According to one of Piper’s favorite illustrations to make this point: If there is no joy in the duty of kissing our wife, the duty is stripped of its moral value. Or, would we bring our wife flowers and tell her that we did it out of mere duty? Therefore, supposedly, we can fool our wife but we can’t fool God—He knows that our duty is without moral value.
Missed in these supposedly profound illustrations is how real life really works. Getting my wife flowers may be an inconvenience because I am under the gun to finish a project, but after I die to self and get her the flowers, I am thrilled because of how happy she is to receive the flowers. My initial denial of self does not strip the deed of its moral value just because the self-denial didn’t initially feel good. And in regard to escaping hell being a motivation for one to give their life to Christ, I like what a pastor friend of mine said about that: “If someone gives their life to Christ to escape hell—that tells me they knew they deserved to go there.”
Moreover, that’s why in their endeavor to make round theological pegs fit in square holes, GS advocates like Francis Chan have to ignore the literal plain sense of Scripture. In an interview with Christianity Today conducted by Mark Galli regarding Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell (which is supposedly a rebuttal to Rob Bell’s recent book), Chan proclaimed himself “agnostic” in regard to believing that hell is eternal torment. Here is how Galli framed the question:
“In your book you seem agnostic as to whether hell is a conscious eternal torment or annihilation.”
Chan answered this way:
“That was one of the things I was a little surprised by: the language [uh, you mean God’s language?]. I would definitely have to say that if I leaned a certain direction I would lean toward the conscious torment that’s eternal. But I couldn’t say I’m sure of that, because there are some passages that really seem to emphasize a destruction. And then I look in history and find that’s not really a strange view. There are some good, godly men—and maybe even the majority—that seem to take the annihilation view [so what? They are men—not Scripture]. I was surprised because all I was brought up with was conscious torment. And I see that. I see that in Scripture and I would lean more that way but, I’m not ready to say okay I know it’s this one. So say here Here are a couple of views.’ I don’t even remember if I wrote that I lean towards that, but maybe it comes across.”
This brings to mind the rank hypocrisy of New Calvinists that mock Joel Olsteen for this same kind of double-minded pontification while praising Chan for being “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of our age.” Though many verses could be cited, I think this chilling passage from the book of Revelation speaks clearly in regard to the issue:
“’If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.’ This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.”
Sometimes obedience isn’t joyful at all. I have relatives who are dear to me that aren’t saved. The thought of them going out into eternity, and into eternal torment, is beyond horrifying. But yet, I stand on Psalm 145:17 which states that God is righteous in all of His ways. It’s a trust in God, a resolve to stand on Scripture regardless of how it makes me feel. This is an issue of obeying truth rather than strong feelings about truth. Feelings cannot dictate what our doctrine is—this is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, in the same issue, Chan eludes to other issues about hell that throws a monkey wrench into GS:
“I think there is also some misunderstanding on degrees of punishment. I do see Jesus saying that judgment is going to be worse for some, like the rewards are going to be better for some. But that might be a slight issue.”
Chan sees it in Scripture (so he’s for it), “But that might be a slight issue” (but he might be against it before he is for it). This is a huge problem for GS doctrine because it assumes God recognizes human merit in some way—even among the lost. Galli’s subtitle is also telling: “Why ‘Erasing Hell’ was his most difficult book, how ‘Love Wins’ prompted repentance, and whether ‘Believe in Jesus or you’ll go to hell’ is good news.” So, should hell be in our gospel presentations? And if not, since the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, what is information about hell all about?
New Calvinism is nothing more than a novelties empire full of all kinds of misfits vying for book sales, popularity power, and if CJ Mahaney’s recent fall is any indication—glorious greenbacks. It’s a sideshow of rebels like Bell pushing the envelope too far while others try to clean up the mess in various and sundry ways to keep the empire’s cash cow alive. Piper, who at times creates controversy by who he invites to conferences, excommunicated Bell with a tweet, while Chan told Galli that Bell’s book was bad, but had good things in it, but bad things too, but also led him to repent for certain sins in his (Chan’s) life. And yes, it has error, but the kind of error that makes us think, which is good error—right?
paul
A Passing Thought: I Have Tried It
“I remember a time in my Christian life when I wondered what it would have been like to know Jesus face to face like the disciples did. I had a deep desire to know what He was really like “as a person.” This was before I had heard anything about delving “deeper and deeper” into the gospel for purposes of sanctification. I focused heavily on the Gospels and some feel good messages emerged that did bless people’s lives in the feelings department, but all in all—it didn’t work. My closeness to Christ has always been related to my emphasis on spiritual discipline.”
“Living By The Gospel?” http://wp.me/pmd7S-Jh
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments