From the Antinomian’s Own Mouth: What is New Covenant Theology? Part 4; Living in a Narrative
Before I move on to part five which is Bresson’s NCT tenets on “Law,” let me take you into one more creepy interlude. NCT has no practical application for life or counseling; therefore, that void will be filled with abundant creepiness. Once again, I will reference one of Bresson’s readers to make a point.
In response to one of Bresson’s articles ( Abigail post dated 8/6/2008) promoting the idea that using Old Testament historical accounts for life lessons (or instruction) is misguided (a blatant rejection of many Scriptures like Nehemiah 13:25-27 and 1 Corinthians 10:6,11), a reader asked the following:
“I do have a question concerning ‘practical application’, you seem to diss it in the post (because it takes away from the central purpose). I am presently counseling a depressed person and I’m using Phil. 4:4-9. The passage seems to promises wonderful things for those who replace worry with right prayer and erroneous thoughts with true thoughts; namely, that Christ will guard our hearts and minds. Is this approach an improper use of the Scriptures, being practical application?”
Seems like a pretty straight forward question requiring a simple yes or no answer. But Bresson, obviously provoked by the question, responds with another post of 4800 words (Abigail post dated 8/14/2008) in an attempt to answer the readers question, because he couldn’t simply say, “yes, from the NCT perceptive, this kind of practical application of the Scriptures is improper.”
But the 4800 word “answer” led the reader to conclude the following:
“It seems that our primary concern is focus on the glory of Christ and the knowledge of him. This will produce the imperatives naturally. Also, history is still moving toward the return of Christ, by putting ourselves *into* the text, we recognize that we are the ongoing redemptive work of Christ, that didn’t end with the Scriptures. The Scriptures enable us to be part of the history. We are not making our own redemptive history, it is making us. We are between the beginning and the end, but all we need to identify with in Christ is bound in the Scriptures.”
Let me try to unravel that for you. It is the belief that the Bible is a meta-narrative (grand gospel narrative) that interprets our own spiritual life, which is also a predetermined narrative on a microcosmic scale. Therefore, all of reality is encompassed in the grand gospel narrative, or “Christ,” or “the gospel” (see Bresson’s NCT tenet # 1, as well as many other of his tenets in parts one and two). Therefore, the Bible produces a prismatic narrative in which to “see” our own life and interpret it via the gospel. When we understand, “see,” or interpret our life accordingly, it leads to “properly informed” spiritual outcomes, or what Bresson calls a “mere natural flow” regarding obedience, which isn’t obedience at all, but merely watching what Christ has already done for us in the constant unveiling of the “organic” gospel narrative.
So, we are to place ourselves into the narrative; and any attempt on our part to exert effort by following cognitive ideas from the Bible is an attempt to create our own narrative apart from God. Said by Bresson another way in his 4800 word reply: good preaching doesn’t take the text to the parishioner (ie., biblical principles to be learned and applied to life by the believer), but takes the believer to the text. This NCT concept, among many other antinomian / mystic ideas, was also presented by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change” when he said: “The big picture model [historical – redemptive] is the story of every believer. God invites us to enter into the plot!” (page 94). Tripp separates the grand gospel narrative (the Bible) into four categories: Heat, Thorns, Cross, and Fruit, which better enables believers to see where they fit into the grand narrative (supposedly).
In the midst of Bresson’s conversation with the first inquisitor, another reader asked Bresson where he could get more information on living life as a “divine drama.” Bresson replied with the following:
“If you’re interested in how we fit into the redemptive-historical *drama* :-), a couple of books that have interesting thoughts in this regard are Vanhoozer’s “Drama of Doctrine” and Horton’s “Covenant and Eschatology: The Divine Drama”.
I don’t agree with everything they have to say, but I did find what they had to say about “participation”, “drama”, and Christ’s Incarnation to be thought-provoking. There are thoughts there compatible with what we’ve said here.”
Regarding the first reader, here is what Bresson had to say about the person’s aforementioned response:
“It looks like you’re understanding what I’ve said (a minor miracle, I know). I’ll get to your other questions shortly.”
There is no confusion of semantics or misunderstanding here, NCT is fraught with antinomian mysticism, and frankly, I find the Evangelical community’s willingness to associate with its proponents sickening.
paul
Gospel-Driven Counseling Part 3: Clouds Without Water, and Nine Reasons Why “Redemptive” Counseling Can’t Help Troubled Christians
One of Jude’s depictions of false teachers was “clouds without water”(v. 12). Clouds give hope during times of need that the land will finally be revived by rain. Likewise, false teachers appear to offer hope in times of need, but they are actually without the substance to deliver on the promise. Counselors who use the redemptive approach to counseling are not necessarily false teachers, but their approach will not help people; their counseling is clouds without water.
In the first two parts, I used Bill Baldwin’s article published in 1996 to demonstrate how proponents of Gospel Sanctification approach counseling, and will do the same in this post as well. I will make my first point from the following excerpt:
“When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course.”
Here, we observe two reasons in this statement why redemptive counseling will not help people. First, biblical counseling is not just about outward behavior, but also how counselees think. Biblical counseling calls for a change in thinking (ie., biblical thinking), and behavior also with both being curative. The redemptive approach lumps efforts to change thinking into the same category as behavioral change with the following nomenclature: “change by our own efforts” (which is supposedly wrong). Therefore, an emphasis on biblical thinking (which is very critical) will not be emphasized any more than outward behavior, which, as can be seen by Baldwin’s statement, is devalued to begin with. Another example of lumping biblical thinking together with “teeth gritting, pick yourself up by the bootstraps, legalistic, living by lists and do’s / don’ts,” ect., ect., is Paul David Tripp’s statement in “How People Change”:
“. . . and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior. Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to ‘think his thoughts’ and ‘act the way Jesus would act’”(p. 27, 2006 edn).
Notice also in Tripp’s statement that any effort to align our thoughts with the mind of Christ “omits….[the] work of Christ as Savior.” So, any effort on our part in the sanctification process is also likened to efforts to earn salvation. More on that later.
Secondly, as can be ascertained by Baldwin’s statement cited above, redemptive counseling makes a distinction between our work and the Spirit’s work in sanctification; when in fact, the two are seamless (the fruit of the Spirit is self control, Gal. 5:23). Counselors that suggest an either / or in the sanctification process reek havoc and confusion on counselees. To suggest that a counselee may not be walking in the Spirit even when he / she is obeying Scripture, because it may take effort, is to invite unhealthy introspection and mysticism into the counselee’s life. Besides, it’s a blatant contradiction to many verses such as Galatians 6:9. Jay Adams has stated the same concern this way:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (What is Sanctification, Institute for Nouthetic Counseling blog).
These are the first two reasons redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians – it discourages biblical thinking, and it equates our effort in sanctification with walking in the flesh.
Baldwin continues:
“He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.”
The third reason gospel-driven counseling will not help troubled Christians is because it distorts the biblical relationship of the Law to justification verses sanctification. In other words, redemptive counseling makes no distinction between the two and their relationship to the Law. This can be clearly seen in Baldwin’s above statement: the sole role of the Law is to lead the counselee back to the gospel as before he / she was saved, and not for the purpose of instruction as Paul clearly indicated in 2Timothy 3:16. Likewise, Michael Horton apes Baldwin when he wrote the following:
“The imperatives drive us [Christians (emphasis by underline mine)] to despair of self-rightousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior.”
Horton goes on to say in the same article (“Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living”) that an emphasis on deeds (ie., obedience) “leaves the sinner in the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.” The suggestion by Horton is that efforts at good behavior removes the righteousness of Christ from the believers life.
This is the third reason gospel-centered counseling will not help Christians; because it disavows the instructive value of the Law in the believer’s life.
Baldwin’s next statement will be considered for my next points:
“And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience [emphasis mine] held out in Scripture.”
Hence, instead of learning more and more about how to apply God’s imperatives / wisdom to life, and doing so, which is key to a sound Christian life (Matthew 7:24-27), “faith” is supposedly evoked by a continual revisiting of the gospel. Notice that the primary goal is to evoke faith, via the gospel, just like in justification. Therefore, redemptive counseling is the extrapolation of justification moving forward with no recognition of a sanctification that involves a co-laboring of the believer. In essence, it is sanctification by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone, which, and don’t miss this: results in “gospel obedience.” What is gospel obedience? Simply put, it is often referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” In other words, when we continually revisit the gospel, the same monergistic results of justification are to be expected in sanctification, and therefore, both are a total work of Christ only. Said yet another way, Christ obeys for us. In case you think Baldwin is some isolated crack-pot, consider this quote by Michael Horton:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57).
The following statement by Tullian Tchividjian should also be considered:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
Other extremes of this doctrine can be seen in Horton’s statement that, in essence, synergistic salvation is a false gospel. Therefore, since as Tullian Tchividian notes, a co-laboring in sanctification is the orthodox view among Evangelicals, redemptive counselors will begin their counseling relationship with most counselees by assuming they are lost, and will first focus on converting them to said doctrine. Furthermore, in marriage counseling, if one spouse accepts this doctrine and the other one doesn’t – the counseling will continue (erroneously) with a mixed marriage in view.
Another angle by Paul David Tripp can be added for good measure. On pages 171 and 172 ( starting in the last paragraph on page 171) of “How People Change,” Tripp propagates the idea that we are still spiritually dead as believers and are not an “improved version” of our old selves. Therefore, since Christ is the only one in us that is spiritually alive, we have unlimited potential because it is Christ in us that is doing everything (this, of course, is in blatant contradiction to Ephesians 4:20-24).
In conclusion on these points, the following are further reasons numbering four through eight of why redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians:
4. It tells the counselee that sanctification is by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone.
5. It tells the counselee that Christ obeys for us.
6. It replaces a deeper knowledge of God’s wisdom and its application to life with a mystical “deeper knowledge of the gospel.”
7. It often assumes that the counselee is not saved for erroneous reasons. This is obviously detrimental to a healthy and productive counseling process.
8. It will misinterpret marriages as mixed for erroneous reasons. This is also detrimental to productive marriage counseling.
Lastly, redemptive counseling presents the counselee with an erroneous picture of how sanctification is experienced. The counselee is told that when Christ is obeying for us, obedience will be experienced as a joyful, unconscious reaction. Note carefully what Baldwin says in the same article:
“If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin….Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that.”
Note, according to Baldwin (and likewise, others such as John Piper), true obedience is always joyful and unconscious, even to the point of obeying Scripture without first knowing what it says (because its not us obeying anyway). Should we teach troubled Christians these things? I think not. Besides, it makes a mockery of Matthew 26:37- 42. Obeying God can often be necessarily difficult for many reasons.
Gospel-driven counseling cannot, and will not help troubled Christians. Furthermore, evangelicals have a duty and responsibility to warn other Christians to stay clear of this counsel that promises to give hope, but cannot deliver. This theology and its counselors are clouds without water.
paul
Gospel-Driven Confusion
I appreciate Greg Gibson’s blog which will often list a series of relevant articles for “busy disciples” (http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ). Many times, the articles concern “New Calvinism” which also includes those who hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification (or “gospel-driven” sanctification). This is an antinomian doctrine that synthesizes justification and sanctification, covertly nullifying the use of the Law in the sanctification process.
The most recent list (of which are not necessarily the shared view of Greg Gibson) are excellent examples of the confusion GS is unleashing on the contemporary church. The first article is about a church that executed a popular trend among GS based churches: excommunicating non-active members. Gibson posted the link written by Jonathan Leeman of “9 Marks” blog, which is connected to Capital Hill Baptist Church. CHBC became heroes in the Neo-reformed movement when they excommunicated 256 members for non-attendance, so their interest in interviewing the pastor from the latest church to out-perform them is understandable.
But unbelievably, it quickly became apparent from the twenty or so comments attached to the article, and the authors feedback that it is unclear as to whether or not the parishioners were actually excommunicated or not. It all began with the following apt observation in the comment section:
“….membership on a church role is NOT, absolutely NOT, the same as membership in the Body of Christ. The church membership role is a fallible, human attempt to count members and be more efficient in ministry. That’s great. I’m for church membership and church roles. I support regenerate church membership. I also support culling through roles and taking names off the role because they are inactive and unresponsive. But that is distinctly different from the real theological issues behind the labels “excommunication” and “unrepentant sin.” Those two terms need to be used with care and precision. And we are adding to Scripture to justify applauding their use here….It’s STILL assuming leaps and bounds over what Scripture says. Surely this Catholic view of the Scriptures is NOT what 9 Marks believes [hmmm, I wouldn’t be sure of that]. This is labeling something unrepentant sin that Scripture does not label sin. It’s inferring and implying from Scripture with the result of pronouncing EXCOMMUNICATION (a VERY serious word) over people who may just have never gotten the letter. Or people who never in their years of attending that church under leadership with a lesser view of membership were ever taught to embrace. It’s a sloppy use of church discipline [amen brother!!], which is a very needed practice in the church. This undermines the good use of church discipline for every congregation that desires to use it as God intended for the health of the Body. I implore you again, for the health of the churches who read this and are affected by the leadership here, please correct this article or take it down”[you go boy!!!].
I agree, but then things really start getting crazy when another reader notes the following about the same article:
“If those of you commenting would bother to read the article, you would find that the term ‘excommunication’ wasn’t part of the response, but part of a question posed by Mr. Leeman to Mr. King.
Mr. Leeman asks:
“David, I heard that you recently excommunicated 500 members from your church. Can this be right?”
Mr. King responded:
“What you heard is only partly true. We actually removed 575 members”.
Here, this reader corrects the other readers by pointing out that Leeman called it excommunication, but the pastor of the church that removed the members supposedly corrected him by using a different word. But then the other readers rightly correct him by pointing out that the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the interview is that the members were, in fact, excommunicated:
“Well apparently according to the last statement by Mr Leeman of his desire that some of the 575 would ‘repent and attend healthy churches’ so based on this it leads one to assume that all these people are indeed excommunicated to the fullest extent and definition of term, and not just ‘removed from the membership role’….Mr. King did not correct him when Mr. Leeman asked about excommunication. He only corrected the numbers. Mr. King is saying, ‘Well actually we excommunicated 75 more people than you said.’ The point remains that excommunication is an unfortunate term to be used here and this article should be taken down or corrected.”
After this comment, the author of the post then suggested that all of the confusion was merely a matter of semantics regarding the definition of different terms. He was then corrected as follows:
“I agree with your definition of excommunication and am using the term in the same way. I take issue with the assumption of ‘unrepentant sin.’ The process he outlines makes not attending their church an ‘unrepentant sin.’ And if they could not document by people’s responses that they were indeed attending their church or another church (I hope at least that), they were LABELED unrepentant. I don’t mind them removing them from the roles. But it is not sin to stop attending a particular church. I have moved churches several times since college, all but once because I moved cities. I likely wouldn’t have gotten a letter even if they had tried to contact me. If they had labeled me unrepentant, it would have been slander. I’d be much more comfortable with this if either 1) you removed the terms excommunication and/or unrepentant sin OR 2) Mr. King clarifies that people weren’t labeled unrepentant simply because they didn’t respond to his letters to them. Because that is a BIG jump over a number of restraining principles in Scripture.”
The author then responded with the usual, long, tortured GS-type response. This sad, confusing commentary can be read in its entirety here: http://networkedblogs.com/8BQuZ
Actually, I like Camile’s response the best:
“This is simply appalling. I understand the need to ‘tidy’ a membership list. That happens.
But to ‘excommunicate’ people simply because they moved away or even joined another church? Talk about assigning negative intent.
I hope it’s sobering for you. I do. This has nothing to do with Jesus or the Gospel.”
P.s., Camile, it’s what happens when you think every verse in the Bible is about redemption.
But in another article listed along with the one above, the confusion continues, and this time at the hands of one of the fathers of Gospel Sanctification, the lovable Jerry Bridges. The second article is entitled “ 12 Steps to Identifying Your Functional Saviors” and the author begins the post this way:
“Whatever we direct our affections, energies, and hopes towards is our object of worship. Our heart needs Jesus; our flesh craves idols. This is why growing in love for Christ requires daily execution of idols. But how do we know what our idols are?”
This is the GS belief that we change by emptying our hearts of idols which leaves a void in our heart that Jesus then fills with himself resulting in Christ obeying for us. This was all hatched by David Powlison in the early 80’s and articulated by Paul David Tripp in his book “How People Change.” Powlison came up with a method to determine what those idols are by asking ourselves “X-ray questions.”
The author then shares a sample of 12 primary X-ray questions that can supposedly be used to determine heart idols from the Jerry Bridges book, “The Bookends of the Christian Life”:
1. I am preoccupied with ________.
2. If only ________, then I would be happy.
3. I get my sense of significance from ________.
4. I would protect and preserve ________ at any cost.
5. I fear losing ________.
6. The thing that gives me greatest pleasure is ________.
7. When I lose ________, I get angry, resentful, frustrated, anxious, or depressed.
8. For me, life depends on ________.
9. The thing I value more than anything in the world is ________.
10. When I daydream, my mind goes to________.
11. The best thing I can think of is ________.
12. The thing that makes me want to get out of bed in the morning is ________.
In an unusual display of discernment by readers, some raised questions about such a notion. For example: if I am preoccupied with my daughters wedding the week prior to the big day does that mean I have heart idols? If I am preoccupied with my wife being in labor, does that mean I love her more than I love Christ? The whole goofy notion of determining heart idols through asking ourselves “X-ray questions” brings up more questions by thinking Christians than could ever be answered; like, should “Christ” be written in every blank? Apparently, the propagators of the method don’t even know; Jered, the author of the post, responded this way:
“There’s nothing wrong with cherishing family, wanting to protect family, being sad if someone in our family is hurt of suffering, etc. I don’t think that’s what the list is getting at.
Nor is it saying we should put ‘Jesus’ into the blanks [well then, what should go in there?]
It’s just a general list, taken altogether, that can be diagnostic of where our ultimate treasure is. No need to absolutize each question or over-think it. Let’s just be conscious to have Christ as our ultimate treasure, which means being aware of our natural drift to idolatry.
The cool thing is that this doesn’t mean we stop enjoying or loving good things. This means actually loving our families better and enjoying good things (like work, sex, sports, etc.) more than if they were our actual treasure.”
Huh? So, they’re diagnostic questions, but the answers are not definitive? Welcome to the confused, nebulous world of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel-Driven confusion.
paul
Charles Stanley now Embracing Antinomian Distortion of Galatians 2:20
As I was driving down the road this afternoon I was delighted to hear “In Touch” with Dr. Charles Stanley. Yes, I know, there has always been some issues with Stanley, but I still enjoy listening to him. However, I was a bit surprised to hear what he had to say during his “Stages of Our Christian Life” series. If I remember correctly, he was on stage seven, the stage where we supposedly realize the significance of, and here we go again, Galatians 2:20.
Stanley then proceeded to exegete this verse in the same way others of our day do; namely, contemporary Antinomians such as David Powlison, Paul David Tripp, Tim Keller, Justin Taylor, Tim Lane, John Piper, Micheal Horton, DA Carson, Tullian Tchividjian, and Jerry Bridges, to name a few. JC Ryle called it the “Christ in us doctrine,” and such Antinomiam doctrines of his day prompted him to write his “Twenty Letters on Holiness.” I go into this in some detail here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lW
Basically, the doctrine teaches that we (believers) are still dead in trespasses and sins, and that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ who obeys for us, since we are “dead and can do nothing” (Paul Tripp, “How People Change” 2006). Galatians 2:20 can be interpreted that way via a cursory observation. Stanley clearly stated during the message I heard that the only life in us is Christ. To some degree that is true, but the fact is overstated in a way that refutes the biblical truth that we are “new creatures” and “born again” unto spiritual life. Some proponents of the doctrine, also known as Gospel Sanctification, even promote the idea that we are re-saved on a continual bases because our spiritual condition is no different than our spiritual condition prior to salvation (totally depraved).
Stanley went on to say that this “truth” is liberating because we can finally cease from putting forth effort in the sanctification process. That’s what he plainly said. He shared what his thoughts were after embracing this “truth” and seeing their church building for the first time afterward: “Lord, I don’t have to do anything to build this ministry, you do it all.” Furthermore, Stanley then explained that Christians don’t have to put forth any effort to obey God, but rather passively “yield” to God’s truth / power. JC Ryle contended against this exact same element of “yielding” in the “Christ in us” doctrine, and objected to this concept as a replacement for exertion by us in the sanctification process.
I address this doctrine as it is being taught by those mentioned above in the following post: http://wp.me/pmd7S-jQ
paul
Jerry Bridges Proffers Gospel-Driven Bondage
“….they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it.”
“’Jesus / gospel‘ replaces ‘justification,’ and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.”
Let me begin with some groundwork. As John MacArthur said in his book “Truth War,” to fight error in our day takes determination, perseverance, and tenacity. This is because today’s propagators of false doctrine are masters of nuance. In regard to those who propagate the antinomian doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, the goal is to eliminate application of biblical imperatives by referring to such a use of God’s word as “living by lists,” “reducing the Bible to a book of rules,” etc. Of course, they don’t mention that the Bible has “rules” that are often stated in list form. Therefore, they carefully word their presentation so you will assume they are talking about people who use the Bible in a legalistic way. Meanwhile, they ignore practical application of the Scriptures while heavily emphasizing grace. Soon our particular efforts in sanctification will be buried and forgotten (out of sight, out of mind) while subtle / negative references to the application of biblical imperatives slowly throws one more shovel-full of dirt on the hole that obedience is buried in.
This method is also accompanied by synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we are sanctified by the same monergistic gospel that saved us, we can’t do anymore with the Law in sanctification than we did with it in justification. After all, one of the Gospel Sanctification mantras is “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” D.A. Carson, in an interview with Tim Keller concerning the T4G 2011 conference, shared that the main thrust of that conference will be to teach pastors how to “drive toward Christ and the gospel” and to show what “Biblical Theology [ie., Geerhardus Vos hermeneutics] looks like” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you [always] get to Jesus.” Let me rephrase that. What D.A. Carson really means is they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it. If the “same” gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, then sanctification is monergistic. If it’s not monergistic, then it’s not the same gospel that saved us. They can only have it both ways until people start asking questions. Later in the interview, D.A. Carson disingenuously notes that several perspectives on preaching will be presented at the same conference; supposedly, unlike other conferences (who only present the Grammatical Historical perspective). In saying this, he assumes the listeners will not associate the term “Biblical Theology” with hermeneutics. Let me also add that it’s not really about always getting to Jesus; it’s about always getting to “what Jesus has done, not what we have done” (another GS mantra often used by Micheal Horton). “Jesus / gospel” replaces “justification,” and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.
This now brings me to the significance of an excerpt from the Jerry Bridges book, “Transformed by Grace.” Jerry Bridges (who coined the phrase, “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”) is not any different from most GS advocates; it’s difficult to find definitive grounds for argument in their nuanced approach. Most of the time you will have to read several pages in order to find clear statements that reflect what they really believe. In this case, another blogger supplied the following excerpt from the above mentioned book. My comments are in brackets:
“Paul’s call to stand firm in our freedom in Christ and not let ourselves be burdened by a yoke of slavery is just as valid today with our rules as it was in the Galatians’ day with the Mosaic law… God gave us our spiritual Magna Charta.
[Paul’s call to freedom in Christ regards freedom from being justified by the Law. Here, Bridges extrapolates that idea into the realm of sanctification. As I mentioned above in my introduction, we see Bridges slight the idea of applying biblical rules to life, but doing so subtly by calling them “our” rules. But since the Mosaic Law is part of scripture, and he makes that comparison, he is really talking about the application of the Mosaic Law (where applicable, ie., Ephesians 6:1) to life. Also, though Jesus’ yoke is light, we, in fact, are His slaves and were “bought with a price.” ]
Through Paul, He called us to be free: ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ In fact, God doesn’t just call us to freedom, he actually exhorts us to stand firm in our freedom – to resist all efforts to abridge or destroy it.
[Yes, in regard to justification, BUT as Christians, we actually find our freedom in aligning our lives with God’s law:
James 1:25
“But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.”
James 2:12
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom….”
Furthermore, Jesus said that the “truth will set you free,” and “thy word is truth.” Freedom comes from applying God’s word to life. We are set free by being slaves to Christ’ lordship, that isn’t the same as being in bondage to the Law in an attempt to be justified by it.]
Despite God’s call to be free and His earnest admonition to resist all efforts to curtail it, there is very little emphasis in Christian circles today on the importance of Christian freedom. Just the opposite seems to be true.
[But we are called to freedom on two fronts: freedom from the Law for justification, and freedom from the bondage of sin by obeying the perfect Law of liberty. Bridges only refers to the one. Why? Because in his mind, they are both the same, that’s why. However, in our day, the freedom that is not being emphasized is freedom for the believer by PROPERLY aligning his or hers life with the word of God.]
Instead of promoting freedom, we stress our rules of conformity.
[They’re not OUR rules, they are the Lord’s rules. Please note that a “lord” usually has rules he wants you to follow.]
Instead of preaching living by grace, we preach living by performance. Instead of encouraging new believers to be conformed to Christ, we subtly insist that they be conformed to our particular style of Christian culture. Yet, that’s the bottom line effect of most of our emphases in Christian circles today.
[ Living to love Christ by keeping His Law and striving to please Him accordingly is not “living by performance,” that is a typical GS red herring. Paul said whether in the body or apart, “we make it our goal to please Him,” and obviously, the word of God is the standard for that. Also, notice the *us against them* mentality in the suggestion that supposed graceless living is a “Christian culture” in most “Christian circles today.” This is indicative of the GS mentality that believes they are on a mission from God to save the church from the Dark Ages of synergistic sanctification.]
For example, many people would react negatively to my quoting only part of Galatians 5:12, ‘You, my brothers, were called to be free.’ Despite the fact that this statement is a complete sentence, they would say, ‘But that’s not all of the verse. Go on to quote the remainder: ‘But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love.’…
[Jerry, Jerry, Jerry, the Galatians were being tempted to go back to a system that taught you had to keep the Law to maintain your salvation, NOT the idea that you keep the Law to love Christ and to please Him. We believe that we are kept by the power of God, but that does not negate our call to uphold the Law of God!]
The person who reacts this way has made my point. We are much more concerned about someone abusing his freedom than we are about his guarding it. We are more afraid of indulging the sinful nature than we are of falling into legalism.
[Here, Bridges makes the shocking suggestion that being concerned with keeping the Law is not “guarding” our freedom, and that being more afraid of indulging in the sinful nature than guarding our “freedom” is legalism. This troubling assertion should speak for itself.]
Yet legalism does indulge the sinful nature because it fosters self-righteousness and religious pride. It also diverts us from the real issues of the Christian life by focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” – Jerry Bridges, Transforming Grace, pp. 121-122
[ In this last statement, Bridges notes another GS staple often propagated by Paul Tripp and David Powlison; namely, our efforts as Christians to uphold the Law leads to self-righteousness and religious pride, and to make such an effort is “focusing on external and sometimes trivial rules.” Instead, we should supposedly only focus on “what Jesus has DONE rather than our OWN efforts,” which supposedly leads to an automatic kind of obedience earmarked by a willing and joyful spirit / attitude.]
How can bridges talk so strongly about one freedom without at least mentioning the other? Because that’s the freedom (through the Law in sanctification) he doesn’t want to emphasize even though his audience is Christian. Therefore, what Bridges is actually teaching is a gospel-driven bondage that averts Christians away from an effort to apply God’s word to life. Not only that, we now have conferences that are teaching leaders to propagate this approach wholesale throughout the church; true freedom as bondage. Buyer beware.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments