“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 7: The 5 Points of Your New Calvinist Arrogance
Point One. Your Name: It insinuates that you’re the new and improved version of “old” Calvinism. Which is not only arrogant, but a lie as well.
Point Two. Your apologetics: You believe that you preach the only true gospel. One example would be what Michael Horton wrote on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” where he states that any separation of justification and sanctification results in the lose of BOTH. The synthesis of the two is the crux of the New Calvinist gospel.
Point Three. Your hermeneutic: One of your mantras plainly states how ALL people approach the Bible. The judgment is that NOBODY approaches the Bible with an open mind. One of your haughty teachers states it this way, “How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have ‘tilts’ that may or may not be known to us.” And I will give you three wild guesses as to who can lead us in the right direction! Basically, New Calvinist leaders teach their followers that they have an inability to properly ascertain truth; or at the very least, should ALWAYS be in doubt of what they have read or studied. As I have said before and will say again, this shows New Calvinism’s kinship to postmodern thought which devalues the ability to know absolute truth absolutely. But more to the point, it dogmatically proclaims a restriction on the ability of others to understand the word of God on their own.
Point Four. Your Theology: Your view of law and gospel states that you are “free” from the law while EVERY other Christian who believes the law has a role in sanctification is still IN BONDAGE, ie., you are free and we are still in bondage. Gag, it’s not only arrogant, it’s also a lie.
Point Five: Your eschatology: You have informed Christ that He has low self-esteem, and you have fixed that for Him by making every verse in the Bible about Him and deemphasizing “an issue about a sliver of geography that eclipses Christ.” How dismayed you will be when he doesn’t thank you at the judgment.
paul
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
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
Is Gospel-Driven Sanctification Really “Sonship” Theology?
Two weeks ago, sitting in my office with my feet propped on a bookcase and chatting with Susan, I happened to be looking up at my Jay Adams shelf. Since it had been too long since I’d read any of his material (at least two weeks), I put my feet down on the floor and began perusing what I haven’t lent to other people; and thinking, “Hmmm, wonder what this is: ‘Biblical Sonship.’”
I always read the preface. So you have the cover, cover page, copyright, contents, and preface. I was reading the first page of the preface, and in the third paragraph, when I read the following: “It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith in the good news.”
Barely a hundred words into the book, and I was stunned. That is the exact same thesis as gospel sanctification, a movement I have been researching for three years. The movement (gospel sanctification, or “gospel-driven sanctification”) is huge and its propagators are the who’s who of the evangelical world that they are supposedly trying to save: DA Carson, Michael Horton, Paul David Tripp, David Powlison, Tim Keller, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Devers, Francis Chan, Jerry Bridges, and many, many others. The theology is also propagated by several missionary alliances and church planting organizations like the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa.
As Jay Adams notes in his book, the Sonship movement was started by Jack Miller, a former professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary who is now deceased. According to other sources, Jack Miller’s epiphany concerning Sonship occurred while he was on an extended trip in Spain with his family. An article I read by Geoff Thomas in Banner of Truth was written in 2003, and he mentions the trip to Spain as being about twenty years prior; so figure 1980, or around that time, for the birth of Sonship theology.
In all of my studies concerning gospel sanctification, I had never heard of Jack Miller or Sonship theology, but it became clear from the Jay Adams book that the two theologies are the same thing with the usual peripheral aberrations from the basic form; and the basic form being, but not confined to, progressive justification, sanctification by faith alone, substitutionary monergistic sanctification, and the total depravity of the saints. There is absolutely no doubt – this theology turns orthodoxy completely upside down while the intestinal fortitude of the rest of the evangelical community wanes. Apparently, big names like Jerry Bridges and others are like GM, they’re just too big to fail. As one brother wrote to me: “How dare you criticize DA Carson, one the greatest theological minds of our day!” Furthermore, as Dr. Peter Masters has noted, it is interesting that doctrine doesn’t matter if you are “gospel-driven” in your beliefs. For example, Charismatic and emergent church leaders are readily excepted into the new Calvinism clan if they are “gospel-centered.”
But what came first? Sonship, or gospel sanctification? Did gospel-driven sanctification come from Sonship? Is Jack Miller the father of new Calvinism? It’s looking that way. Historical precedent for gospel sanctification (GS) cannot be found before (approx.)1980. It is the brainchild of Dr. David Powlison, professor at CCEF, the biblical counseling wing of Westminster Seminary. GS came out of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” curriculum developed and taught by him at Westminster. Two of his former students articulated the doctrine in the book “How People Change.” This is made clear by Powlison in the forward he wrote for the same book. Shortly prior to the book’s release, the doctrine’s theories were tested in local churches via a pilot program. In the reformed church I attended that was part of the pilot program, the curriculum was taught in a Sunday school class with a limited number of participants.
“How People Change” articulates a theology that is virtually identical to Sonship theology. And, it just so happens that David Powlison himself claims that Jack Miller is his “mentor.” He recently stated this as fact while teaching a seminar at John Piper’s church, and in the midst of fustigating Jay Adams for criticizing Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves everyday” *see endnote. I thought this phrase was originally coined by Jerry Bridges, but Jerry Bridges attributes the phrase to Jack Miller in the preface of “The Disciplines of Grace.” Tim Keller, a looming figure in the new Calvinism / gospel-driven / gospel sanctification movement, was teaching GS under the “Sonship” nomenclature as late as 2006. On the Puritan Board, a faint cry for help was uttered by a person saying the following: “ The Sonship theology of Tim Keller has taken a hold of the church I attend. Am I the only one, or does anyone else have a problem with this?”
Furthermore, my research would strongly suggest that the development of other contemporary theologies like New Covenant Theology, (many attribute its conception to Westminster Seminary sometime during the 80’s or 90’s), heart theology (definitely conceived at Westminster during the 90’s), redemptive-historical hermeneutics, and Christian hedonism (latter conceived by John Piper in the 80’s) were primarily driven by the need to validate Sonship / GS doctrine. Sonship needs the NCT perspective on the law, the supposed practical application of finding idols in the heart via heart theology, the perspective of how Sonship is experienced through Christian hedonism, and more than anything else, an interpretive redemptive prism supplied by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But why has gospel sanctification enjoyed freedom from ridicule not afforded to Sonship? They are, for all practical purposes, the same exact thing and encompass many of the same teachers. Probably because gospel sanctification has the word “gospel” in it. In this age of hyper-grace, people will shy away from any appearance of being against “the gospel.” I have to believe that the movement has traded the Sonship label, with its share of bullet holes, for the “gospel-driven” label. Sonship has been besieged by two works, the book by Jay Adams and a lengthy article by Van Dixhoorn, a former student at Westminster. Sonship has also been pelted with its share of the “antinomian” accusation, and rightfully so. In my second addition of “Another Gospel,” I write the following on page 78:
“….if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.”
At least one book, a lengthy pamphlet, and several articles defend Sonship against Adams and Van Dixhoorn, but the theological arguments are woefully lame. Nevertheless, my point is that gospel sanctification, though the same thing, is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout the church without controversy while unifying camps that are theologically suspect to say the least.
It is what it is; while mad theological scientist concoct all sorts of new potions in the lab and send their minions out to commit first-degree doctrinal felonies in broad daylight, while many who profess to love the real gospel say nothing. I pray that will change, while thanking God for those who love the truth more than the acceptance and praises of men.
Endnote:
Powlison failed to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book that is an apology against Sonship theology. Failure to mention that put Adams in an anti-gospel light as well as depriving him of the ability to contextualize the criticism. As an aside, Powlison, in the same seminar, criticized “idol hunting”; but yet, he is the inventor of “X-ray questions”(which he also mentioned in positive terms without the “X-ray” terminology, but rather something like “reorienting questions”) which are designed to identify heart idols (see page 163 of “How People Change”). His mentor, Jack Miller, developed a complex system of idol hunting that included twenty different categories of heart idols (Jack Miller, “Repentance and the 20th Century Man”CLC 1998). This kind of disingenuous double-speak is commonplace within the movement.
“Christless Christianity”: Michael Horton’s Lawless Trilogy
See no law, hear no law, speak no law. Such is “Christless Christianity,” published by Dr. Michael Horton in 2008. He presents the book as a treatise exposing the supposed fact that the church is awash in a “Christless” evangelicalism. After suffering through page after page of a nuanced semblance of orthodoxy masking his antinomian bent, his real thesis, and what drives his “Modern Reformation” organization, is stated on page 62.
See No Law
On page 62, he states the following:
“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.”
Encompassed in this statement is Dr. Horton’s position on “faith,” “practice,” and how we “communicate” those things to the world. Let’s look at the “faith” part. First, he says that both the unregenerate and regenerate are dependent on the “free grace” of God disclosed in “the gospel” “at every moment.” He goes on to say that the gospel (ie., the free grace of justification) does two things: gives life to the spiritually dead (“unregenerate”) and “continually give[s] life to Christ’s flock (ie., believers).
Secondly, believers only receive this life “every time WE encounter the gospel afresh.” Therefore, the relationship of the gospel to unbelievers and believers is no different. We are raised to life and progressively transformed in the exact same way. Horton says this happens at “every moment”; therefore, people are raised to life by the gospel (justification by faith alone) and transformed by the gospel (justification by faith alone), and only “each time” they encounter the gospel “afresh.”
Thirdly, what gospel gives life to the unregenerate? Well, Horton says plainly that if believers leave that same gospel, “you loose both.” Both what? Answer: sanctification and justification. Horton says you get “both” in the bargain because according to him they are both the same. In other word’s, what orthodox Christians normally consider to be sanctification, is really progressive justification. Ever heard of that? Didn’t think so. Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.
Fourthly, we also see another tenet of antinomian (see no law) doctrine (specifically, gospel sanctification) in this same excerpt: “….but the Spirit working through the gospel.” Note “but.” But what? The giving of life: “….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life….” In other words, the Spirit only works through the gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are only used by the Spirit to impart life when the Bible is used in regard to showing forth justification, or the gospel. This is the redemptive-historical use of the Bible. Again, a gospel sanctification tenet. Hence, using the Bible for spiritual instruction is supposedly taboo, and in fact, law-keeping (as though that’s wrong for believers to do in the first place). Like many other proponents of antinomian doctrines, Horton’s teachings will contain a lot of very good what (descriptive information [which the Bible has in glorious abundance]), but rarely any how (prescriptive), and I contend to the detriment of many. They will have a glorious picture of heaven in their minds as they die on the vine, being hearers of the word (they would say gospel) only and not doers, “deceiving themselves.”
Fifthly, we see Horton’s mystical personification of Christ and the gospel in this part of the excerpt: “Start with Christ (that is, the gospel)….” Making the nebulous concept of the person of Christ synonymous with “the gospel,” and also paramount in interpretation rather than what Christ objectively instructs, serves antinomians well. Their writings are often peppered with this kind of subjective rhetoric, but it always has a purpose. An example is making “the gospel” synonymous with “the word” so they can say that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, and therefore serving that purpose only (progressive justification) for believers and unbelievers alike.
Lastly, If Horton, like the antinomian doctrine that he propagates, sees no difference in justification and sanctification, then the law will play the exact same role for believers as it does unbelievers. In fact, this is what Horton believes. However, the following excerpt from “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living” reveals how difficult it is to nail down Horton on this aspect:
“It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with ‘gospel’ and deeds with ‘law,’ especially since these days we often hear calls to ‘live the gospel.’ However, the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, ‘May it never be!’ It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commandments in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commandments not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the ‘reasonable service’ of believers ‘in view of God’s mercies.’ There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commandments tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done.”
This excerpt reminds me of the John Kerry controversy during the 2004 presidential election: “I was for it before I was against it.” First, because of Horton’s progressive justification view, it is not possible for him to believe that the law has a role in sanctification anymore than it would in justification, other than a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for justification. Though he makes statements above that seem to indicate that he believes the law has a role in the spiritual growth process, that’s not the case, it’s just not logically possible when his positions are considered. Consequently, we can clearly see the statements that match progressive justification: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior….” The law shows unbelievers their need for Christ, but please note that the Scriptures never tell us that God’s commands / imperatives drive Christians to despair; the extreme opposite is true. In fact, Christians are promised blessings for applying God’s word to their life (James 1:25).
Secondly, Horton makes it clear in the first excerpt that the Holy Spirit only imparts life “through the gospel”(“….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel”) ; then, he says in the second excerpt that “…. the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative [indicative: indicative of God’s work, not ours]….” But throughout Scripture, we see clearly that in fact, the Holy Spirit does use imperatives to impart life. Examples such as Matthew 4:4 and John 17:17 (see endnote number 3) are abundant throughout the whole Bible. Another glaring contradiction to Scripture is Horton’s suggestion in the second excerpt that commands “are not promises.”
Michael Horton’s gospel is a no-Lordship, antinomian gospel because obeying biblical commands is synonymous with works justification. Furthermore, he believes that biblical commands are indicative of God’s work, not ours. I delve into the subject of imperatives / indicatives in two other essays in this same section.
Hear No law
How does all of this effect corporate worship? Supposedly, we are not to see any law in our progressive justification, but what about when we come together to worship? Should we then hear the law? Michael Horton says the following on pages 189 -191:
“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”
As in the process of spiritual growth, corporate worship focuses totally on the gospel. Notice that Horton refers to believers as a “valley of dry bones” who have come to be made alive by the Spirit’s work through the gospel. This is another tenet of the neo-antinomianism of our day, the total depravity of the saints. In a contrasting scenario (or how not to have corporate worship) on page 191, Horton adds the following: “The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” Note that believers are called “sinners,” and also note the construction of the sentence which would indicate that believers and unbelievers are the same kind of sinners who both gather together for the same purpose.
Again, we also see the redemptive-historical application of Scripture as well for the implementation of grace to passive recipients, and the exclusion of any use of Scripture for spiritual instruction. In fact, Horton chides the latter in the second scenario. Hear no law. Though Horton seems to add balance to this perspective by acknowledging that the Bible mentions “exhortations” in worship, I am skeptical in regard to the genuineness of these statements; the fact remains that his major premise is grievous error.
Speak no Law
Regarding evangelism, the following excerpt is taken from pages 117-119 of “Christless Christianity.” Unfortunately, the excerpt is lengthy, but necessary:
“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. “12 (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.
Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and relocation (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.
We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.
Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identified the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.
Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?”13 I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church movement’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law (do this) without the gospel (this is what has been done).”
Really, I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. There is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts? However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above; “What does the Scriptures say?”:
“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives”(1Peter 3:1,2).
Obviously, Peter is well aware that wives will never have a perfect testimony; but regardless, his counsel to wives is clearly stated. This plainly contradicts Horton’s premise in every way possible.
Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men, so that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the Scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the doctrine of God as Paul also talked about? (Titus 2:10).
The apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to devalue the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those who claim to uphold God’s law by saying He (Christ) does all the obeying for us. Even if they don’t come right out and say it, they may talk against everything that would prevent such a conclusion, and therefore teaching it by default.
Endnotes
3. Of course, Michael Horton would say that the “word” is the “gospel” which wouldn’t include imperatives, but only indicatives, being the gospel. Therefore, as Paul David Tripp also says, the imperatives must be seen in their “gospel context” which means they are indicative of what Christ did for us by obeying the law perfectly in our stead. Therefore, biblical commands are “grounded in the indicative event”; namely, atonement, which not only included the imputation of righteousness, but past, present, and future active obedience as well.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment