“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 15: How Does GS / Sonship Work?
Once you bring people to the point where they can wrap their brain around GS, inevitably, this question follows with an incredulous expression on their faces: “How does this supposedly work in real life?” I have developed a visible chart following this post that will hopefully aid in understanding
Remember, GS / Sonship is sanctification by salvation / justification, so, like salvation, you can only implement belief and repentance to effect sanctification. Therefore, under “Gospel Narrative,” you have the “Belief” and “Repentance” circles. If sanctification is by salvation, then the Bible only addresses justification. Hence, at the top of the chart we have the “Gospel Narrative” circle. The Bible, or gospel narrative, helps us with all of the other circles. In fact, in their view, the Bible could actually be organized according to these circles. Paul Tripp has a similar chart in “How People Change.” It’s just a different way to explain the same thing, except I go beyond his primary “change” thesis and implement some of the theology as well. In chapter 6, Tripp explains this GS “big picture” hermeneutic. He specifically states in chapter six that the whole Bible can be organized according to his chart, and more than once cautions his readers that the information is not “a set of directions, but an aerial view of daily life….” Many GS counselors now use such visual tools to avoid instructing counselees with “do’s and dont’s” and “lists.” The goal is to show the counselee where they are in the gospel narrative, and thereby illuminating the gospel to a brighter level in the mind of the counselee. Tripp claims that his model (a redemptive-historical model) is derived from the book of Jeremiah; but of course, that’s ridiculous.
We will examine the belief leg first and then move to the repentance leg in explaining how these two effect change. Supposedly. Reading the gospel narrative with, as John Piper says, “an eye toward the cross,” we begin to “treasure” (see Treasure circle) Christ and the gospel more and more which contributes to the endgame (the New Obedience circle). Note the Law Positive circle: all of the commands in the Bible are to be seen as what Christ fulfilled for us—a bunch of laws that we could never keep anyway; so instead of seeing them as laws to be obeyed, or instruction, we are to see them as a way to cultivate thankfulness for the works of Christ, “not anything we do.” Therefore, one of the pillars of faith concerning the gospel narrative is its documentation of all of the laws that Christ obeyed for us.
Repentance is the major component of GS. Almost everything is geared towards removing idols from the heart (anything we love more than Christ). As we remove idols from our heart through confession, the void is filled by Christ which results in New Obedience (HPC p.28). Therefore, all of life is geared toward a warfare with idols of the heart. All circumstances are seen as an opportunity to reveal heart idols through our responses (see Response to Circumstances circle). In “How people Change,” it’s the “Heat” circle on Tripp’s chart. Idols of the heart produce evil desires, i.e., anything we love more than Christ; so, an examination of the desires can reveal what the idol is that is causing the sin. This is done through asking ourselves questions that help determine what we loved / wanted / desired more than Christ (see Interpretive Questions circle). David Powlison and Paul Tripp refer to these as “X-ray questions” (HPC p. 163).
“Law Negative” has to do with using Scripture as law, and not gospel / Spirit. The Bible is used for the purpose of (as Michael Horton states it speaking of biblical imperatives): “….drive[ing] us to despair of self righteousness.” GS counselors will often do this, especially during redemptive church discipline. Supposedly, it reveals the folly of trying to obey the law / Scriptural imperatives. Paul Tripp calls such an effort on the part of the believer, “Christless activism.” So it also serves in revealing idols of self righteousness as well. The goal of Law Negative is to bring the counselee to the point where, as Bill Baldwin conveys it—the counselee says, “’I cannot keep it! Someone must do it for me!’”
Once idols are identified and the desires that they produce (by the way, Scripture says sinful desires come from the flesh, not the heart), they can be repented of and replaced with a contrary desire produced by the gospel narrative. This whole process is called “deep repentance,” and replacing the sinful desire with a desire spawned by the gospel narrative is called the “reorientation of desires / heart.” By contemplating the gospel and partaking in deep repentance, we are strengthened to make two primary facilitators of change possible: new desires, and in some veins of GS, “yielding.” Many in the GS movement, like John Piper, believe that we are completely driven by desire. So, by changing the desires—you change the behavior. Of course, this is eerily similar to Freudian Depth Psychology. Others believe that the flesh and the Spirit are figurative realms, and at any moment we yield to one or the other. They also make a distinction between the Spirit and the law—the law brings death like the flesh realm, and the Spirit brings life. Of course, this is eerily similar to Gnosticism.
This all results in the filling of Christ, which results in “New Obedience,” which is always earmarked by experiencing obedience as a “mere natural flow” accompanied by joy.
paul
The Bridgers of Confusion County and Another Short Narrative
What’s going on? Christians are becoming confused, if not frustrated. Starting with me. I finally gave in and read a John Piper book some years ago because he was, and still is, all the rave in Reformed circles. The perplexity started on page 16 of “The Pleasures of God” where he writes the following: “The worth and excellency of God’s soul is to be measured by the object of his love.” Huh? But, he loves us! Man is the measure of God’s soul?! “Certainly, I am missing something,” I thought, so I read additional books written by him. I found them nebulous, ambiguous, subjective, non-applicable to real life, grandeurus, nonsensical, to name but a few descriptors. Adding to my perplexity was the fact that John MacArthur Jr. wrote a glowing forward in one of his books.
Then Steve Camp wrote an adorable piece projecting all kinds of frustration and confusion over Piper inviting Paul David Tripp to one of his conferences. Paul Tripp behaved badly at the conference by bragging about having a “S” word contest with his children. Many also found Piper’s relationship with “Mark the cussing pastor” confusing as well. Remember the sixties song, “Buttercup”? It was about a girl that just builds you up to let you down. Could we make that work? “Johnny-cup, (Johnny-cup baby), you build me up (build me up) just to let me down (let me down), and worst of all (worst of all), we even (we even) wrote a book of essays about you (about you) Johnny-cup (Johnny-cup) baby….”
Anyway, Johnny-cup, or the first Pope of New Calvinism, further dismayed many by inviting Rick Warren to his 2010 Desiring God conference. But it gets even worse. I was recently invited to “chime in” on the recent controversy surrounding Michael Horton posing with Rick Warren in a photo op. I clicked on the link and did some snooping around. Apparently, a discernment blogger by the name of Ingrid Schlueter posted on the controversy and drew heavy fire as a result, probably along the lines of what I get for criticizing guys who know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul. How dare me. In the process, I learned a new term: “Bridger.” Apparently, it refers to someone who builds bridges between Reformed purity and others like Warren. MacArthur has a huge problem with Warren, but he loves Piper, who loves Warren, and…., uh, anyway, it would appear that Schlueter threw up her arms in disgust and canceled her discernment blog—not a good thing in our day because intestinal fortitude in regard to defending the truth is in short supply; we can make necessary adjustments later. Also, it would appear that her critics disingenuously presented her protest as her having a problem with Horton merely being photographed with Warren, but it was really much more than that. Furthermore, I perused one blog that seems to be one of her critics that also promotes Paul Washer—a GS hack. Is Ingrid another victim of the silent killer? So, here is part one of my contribution (“chime”): she needs to dust herself off and remember that those who defend the truth will always be in the minority. We don’t need fewer defenders right now.
Now about the photograph. Horton is posing with Warren who MacArthur says preaches a false gospel, but Horton and MacArthur like each other and have done at least one conference together, and Horton has also been critical of him in the past although he also admires him for many reasons (Warren, not MacArthur), and…. anyway, here is why the photo is such a big deal: Horton is not only in a frame with Warren, the photo projects—bosom buddy; long lost friend; top dawg; thinkin’ of makin’ him leader of my posse (Horton, not Warren); etc. And get this, because it’s just too rich: even though Horton has accused Warren of being an Arminian in the past, there in the picture between them, is a bust of John Calvin! Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid; c’mon girl, you gotta learn to laugh about it sometimes. God allows satire.
This brings me to the second tone of my chime. What’s really going on here? Answer: first gospel wave, postmodernism, second gospel wave, or Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology. In all of the aforementioned events that I cite, folks are just spearing the symptoms. As far back as 1992, I remember a young pastor saying, “My generation is comfortable with contradictions”(if something’s good, it’s “bad” etc.). Right, that’s postmodernism. John MacArthur, who associates with those who hold to postmodern-like thinking, wrote an excellent expose on postmodernism in “The Truth War.” I recommend the book, not his friends. Confused?
Starting in the fifties, a member of the largest denomination in the world, Billy Graham, started the first gospel wave. Basically, all that mattered/matters is getting people saved. Even as a young Southern Baptist, just beginning to learn God’s word in 1983, I perceived the constant preaching of the gospel at church as antithetical to the Scriptures. A plenary gospel concern clearly replaced discipleship. This led to an all but total inability on the part of Christians to take the word of God and help people with real-life problems—which led to pastors (at least in SB circles) to farm-out counseling to schools of thought conceived by those who admitted that they hated God. When Dave Hunt shook Christianity with “The Seduction of Christianity,” decrying the integration of Psychology and Christian truth, it addressed a symptom and offered no solution, except “stop it.”
The solution came via Dr. Jay E. Adams’ biblical counseling model. I think the fact that Jay Adams is known as “the father of biblical counseling,” and his ministry started with the book “Competent to Counsel” (1972?) should make my point here: 1972 is a long way from Pentecost which demands some sort of explanation as to why anybody would be called such a thing. An experience I had recently might help to answer that question. I was at a pastor’s conference about eight months ago and witnessed the following firsthand: pastors bragging that they “didn’t allow counseling to distract them from ‘the gahhhhsssfull’” The gospel? I was an elder in a church where twelve people were saved in one year through its counseling program that was based on the biblical model propagated by Adams. When you show people that God knows what He’s talking about, they will also tend to look to Him for salvation as well. Personally, the model had radically changed my own life prior to that.
Nevertheless, this first gospel wave primed the church to fill the void (caused by a limited repertoire of spiritual weapons) with not only psychology, but postmodernism, which rejects propositional truth. The “Christian” form of postmodernism holds to something like this:
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, “The Truth War” J. MacArthur, emphasis added).
The combination of the first wave and postmodern thought also primed the church for the second gospel wave, Gospel Sanctifcation / Sonship theology. The fist wave emphasized the gospel, or salvation, to the exclusion of sanctification. The second wave said: “Hey, not only is sanctification not important, it’s the same thing as justification” (gospel salvation). Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (Jack Miller / Jerry Bridges), and “The same gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you.” The second wave also borrowed the Christian Postmodern[ism] hermeneutic to make this approach plausable: “The Bible is about the person of Jesus Christ, it is His story, not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” “The word of God is a person.” The GS/Sonship hermeneutic serves the same purpose as Christian Postmodernism; it’s used to put ourselves into the “gospel narrative,” ie., the Bible. In fact, Michael Horton’s teachings are often flavored with this idea of “entering the gospel drama.” Once the prism from which we interpret the Bible is narrowed to the single theme of the gospel, from there, anything goes. Open your Bible and randomly put your finger anywhere; unless it happens to be a passage that is gospel specific, and if a gospel message must be forced upon that passage, twenty different people will yield twenty different interpretations of that text. But that’s ok, because all twenty interpretations are about the gospel! Follow? You can’t go wrong if your take is “gospel centered.” Final equation: objective ideas that can be drawn from the text are OUT—the “objective” gospel that yields subjective truth about the “personhood of Christ” as opposed to what he objectively commands are IN.
Therefore, regardless of the radical results yielded by the Adams model, his objective approach drew much intense fire from a church already deeply entrenched in schools of thought hostile to propositional truth and imperative-driven behavior. I firmly believe that this simple, contemporary historical perspective forms much of the confused landscape we see today. For sure, doctrine is secondary to Gospel Sanctification. That’s why Charismatics like CJ Mahaney, a GS proponent, are welcomed into the New Calvinist camp with open arms, with many scratching their heads regarding the new label: “Reformed Charsimatic.” As far as the rest mugging together in photo ops and conferences—particular truth held by others is just simply not that important—other things are, while the confused laity are still primarily looking for leaders to stand on particular truth and shun those who don’t.
But if the laity is waiting, they better not hold their breath while doing so. And really, is a whole bunch of this really about selling books? New ideas sell books. I am reading “The Story of the Church” by Charles M. Jacobs—an oldie, but goodie. He talks about how the first century church rejected academia all together, as Jesus did to a great degree. It’s obvious that the elite, religious academians controlled the information when Jesus came onto the scene—this is a constant theme throughout the New Testament. According to Jacobs, until the second century, the educated elite were barred from eldership. Sometimes, I wonder if the laity in this country will ever tire of being led around by the nose via the who’s who of the evangelical world. But at the very least, leaders should be held to biblical standards and boycotted when they don’t measure up. As Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
And p.s.—Ingrid, pray about putting you blog back up.
paul
A Response to a Follower of John Piper
The following comment is a good opportunity to clarify John Piper’s doctrine:
Dane,
I will respond line by the line and post it. My responses are in brackets.
“Have you ever even read Piper; his book on missions for instance?”
[Yes, I have read plenty of Piper, but even if I haven’t, what does that have to do with the message he delivered at the 2010 “Together for Gospel Sanctification” (T4GS) conference? Also, I realize that he writes and teaches some really cool stuff, but so does Joel Olsteen.]
“You act as if he is instructing Christians to sit on their thumbs and meditate all day.”
[No, but since I agree with your assessment on what Piper believes on that point:]
‘The point in meditation upon Christ and his gospels is to humble us so we don’t pridefully depend on our works instead of His grace.”
[Right, except for the fact that Piper believes the whole Bible is about the gospel, not just the Gospels. In other words, he believes the whole Bible is about justification. In a very scary interview between DA Carson and Tim Keller, close associates of Piper, and also GS advocates, which I believe was a review concerning the upcoming 2012 T4GS conference, they talked about how they were going to teach pastors to “drive toward Christ and the gospel,” and to show what “Biblical Theology,” ie., the Christocentric redemptive-historical hermeneutic, dubbed BT by Geerhardus Vos, “looks like,” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you {always} get to Jesus.” Whether Piper, Keller, or Carson, I find their nuanced verbiage sickening. If you are going to teach redemptive-historical hermeneutics, for the love of mercy just say so. Also, I assume all of the fawning pastors at that conference will fail to pick-up on the fact that they are being taught to interpret the Bible with a theology (as in “Biblical Theology”), which is Interpretive No-No’s 101. Of course, they are, in fact, going to teach a hermeneutic; only the terminology should raise a red flag, which it won’t.
Notice in your statement that you correctly identify what Piper believes: ANY works on our part in sanctification will result in prideful works INSTEAD of grace. Of course, evangelicals don’t believe that we “depend” on our own works alone in sanctification, but that doesn’t mean we don’t work. But in the video, “The Gospel in 6 Minutes,” which is an excerpt from one of his (Piper’s) sermons, he says to “never {he repeats “never” like, 20 times} separate the gospel from sanctification.” The gospel is received by faith alone. So this clearly means that Piper, as all GS proponents, believes in sanctification by justification, or sanctification by faith alone. This is what’s behind meditating on the gospel to the exclusion of “….works instead of His grace.” In fact, Piper believes that any effort on our part in the sanctification process is works salvation. Though Piper, like most GS advocates, speaks in nuance, the logical conclusion of what he says in the aforementioned sermon is irrefutable. I comment in another post accordingly:
“Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of ‘How People Change.’” ]
“His grace motivates us to works.”
[Not exactly. Piper believes in the total depravity of the saints. Therefore, it stands to reason that the totally depraved can’t be rightly motivated to do anything. In fact, he teaches that joy gives all works moral value and that joy is always a gift from God. In essence, Piper calls on us to sin (work in our own efforts while asking God to forgive us—as you said, this keeps us humble) while waiting for God to grant us joy as a gift. This is what he clearly says on page 43 of “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy.” Hence, like Paul Tripp and many others, Piper teaches that sin is part of God’s prescription for sanctification. The “fight for joy” is—us necessarily sinning; Piper clearly says so. Also, in the short, three-chapter ebook, “Treating Duty as Delight is Controversial” which can be found on his website, Piper clearly says we are, as Christians, “enslaved to sinful passions” and specifically cites Romans 6:17, which speaks concerning our previous unregenerate state before salvation. Per the usual, the first pope of New Calvinism can say a verse says one thing when it clearly says something else because, well, he’s the Pope.]
“Please stop wasting your time criticizing Christians that you are jealous of and causing divisions in the church.”
[ Why would I be jealous of a false teacher? And why are you following this guy? He is in grave, stark contrast to the likes of JC Ryle, BB Warfield, and many, many, others. And truth doesn’t cause division, error does—truth unifies. And, I have seen the divisions / controversies / confusion that Piper’s teachings cause—first hand. Like the company that split because two of the partners stopped doing their job because: to do certain elements of their job that didn’t give them joy would be sin. Supposedly. Like the guy who prayed for hours begging God to save him, and God supposedly wouldn’t, because he couldn’t experience “the treasure chest of joy” that supposedly always accompanies salvation.
No, I’m not wasting my time. I will fight this hideous doctrine till God gives me my last breath or by God’s decree GS is put out of business: whichever happens first.]
paul
Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments