Is Elder Infallibility a Tenet of Christocentric Theology?
I am presently working on a lengthy, in-depth article regarding a particular elder that teaches at a church that propagates the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification, an extreme form of Christocentric theology. As part of my research, I decided to read one of his sermons entitled “How to Listen to a Sermon.” I know, bizarre, but welcome to my world as I research the wacky world of the “gospel-driven life.” It is a world that is like a bottomless Cracker Jack box, where the surprises never end, and the reading of this sermon produced yet another one.
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from *preaching and teaching,* and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added-in to mask the disturbing part of this statement, “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, if I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could not do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, “Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.” We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes *through* the “preacher” first, before getting *to* the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion:
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear very sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also says the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“ -introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process, “ in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? Or, is this just unique in regard to this particular church? Yet, another question could be asked: how many parishioners who heard either of the above mentioned sermons ran for the exit doors? But to answer the first question, I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Christocentric theology.
paul
Beware of Goldsworthy Garbage: Christians Need to Stand in the Love of God’s Truth
I confess that I love God’s word with all of my heart. Before I became a Christian, it was apparent to me that the world didn’t know what truth is. I was probably a lot like Pontius Pilot who replied to Jesus in cynical disdain: “What is truth?” When I found the truth in 1982, I embraced it with all of my life. I loved to read God’s truth and was continually amazed by what God was teaching me.
But in regard to the spiritual sound-bites of our day, someone might well ask me: “Paul, you love God’s word, but do you love God?” My reply would be, and often is, what’s the difference? Besides, what does it mean to “love God” exactly? Our love of God must be based on true knowledge of Him. We must love God the way He wants to be loved. When loving God is not based on objective knowledge, it is really just backdoor anti-law philosophy. Invariably, it just leads to everyone doing what is right in their own eyes with spiritual sounding nomenclature.
So, isn’t it awesome being a Christian? We have a love for God’s truth, and we can learn more and more about God and His truth via what the Apostle Paul called the “sacred writings.” We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us and help in our understanding. But according to some: “Not so fast bubba.” Well, the particular person of the some I am going to write about probably wouldn’t call you “bubba” because he is a “scholarly theologian” by the name of Graeme Goldsworthy. He is a proponent of a certain method of interpreting the Bible called *Biblical Theology.* Oou, sounds good doesn’t it? Who could argue with a title like that? You see, what many, many, Christians don’t know is the following: you have to know how to interpret the Bible. It isn’t enough that you can find it in your native tongue, you must also know how to interpret it. So, to the degree that Biblical Theology is not understood, the Christian world dwells in darkness (for those of you who advocate Biblical Theology, this sentence contains sarcasm). But let us not miss an important point (my first one), Biblical Theology is either critical to Bible interpretation or it’s not. But if it is, then its advocates must necessarily take themselves very seriously (and trust me, they do).
Biblical Theology is an incredibly complex concept to grasp. It deals with the belief that biblical truth is historically organic, but don’t worry, we ain’t even goin’ there. We are going to make this very simple. But we have already backed the Biblical Theology advocate into a corner by making him proclaim how serious the world must take the proclamation that Biblical Theology is critical to understanding the Scriptures. To answer no is to give permission to reject it out of hand. To say yes is to dwell precariously close to an abyss of arrogance, unless the theory is not found wanting. But the theory finds its roots in the eighteenth century. Christians have not had a proper understanding of Scripture until then? Now the abyss has no bottom! But before we continue with my argument regarding a major tenant of BT that can be easily understood, let us consider one more pre-spanking. The theory is so complex (read the massive volumes on the subject written by Goldsworthy for yourself, not to mention Geerhardus Vos) that God’s people would certainly be in utter dependence on Pope-like scholars. In other words, like Catholics, why bother reading the word for ourselves? So to summarize the pre-spanking:
1. Its claims are gargantuan and most likely not in the realm of reality.
2. It’s new.
3. It enslaves God’s people to biblical scholars.
But lets look at one of the easily understood tenets of BT, that of *presupposition.* I have chosen this one because it lends a great look at true biblical interpretation by antithesis. Goldsworthy and many other BT proponents argue that an objective approach to the Scriptures is a myth. They teach that everybody comes to the Scriptures with a presupposition (a pre-supposed idea concerning what the primary theme of Scripture is). So, (and don’t miss this) since everybody comes to the Scriptures with a presupposition (which is also a presuppositional theory), Goldsworthy is merely fulfilling his place in reformation history by presenting the correct presupposition. Wow, awesome. In other words, Goldsworthy clearly rejects the whole concept of exegesis. What’s that? It is the discipline that says all ideas about truth are taken from what the biblical text conveys, and thereby educating and correcting. In spite of Goldworthy and his many minions being the sultans of doublespeak, it all boils down to this: is exegesis true?
Actually, if it is true that exegesis both educates (fills voids of knowledge that teaches about God and His truth) and corrects, then exegesis is a merciless death blow to Biblical Theology. Why? Becomes Exegesis merely replies to the BT theory of presupposition this way: “I will correct your presuppositions if your heart is teachable.” Exegesis also argues to Biblical Theology: “You say that my nemesis, Eisegesis, has no nemesis, namely me, and that I don‘t exist” Who is Eisegesis? He is the antithesis of Exegesis, he says that you must go to the biblical text with the right idea beforehand in order to correctly understand. Therefore, BT teaches that there is no such thing as exegesis, and that all Christians are helplessly enslaved to presuppositions. Therefore, the only cure is the right presupposition. But who is the judge of that? Well, but of course, Graeme Goldsworthy and Geerhardus Voss. So, this is the fourth and fifth points: Bt teaches that Christians are helplessly enslaved to presuppostions (eisegesis) and must be harnessed by the proper presupposition, and exegesis is a myth. In fact, Goldsworthy says the following on page 21 of “Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics”:
“Neutrality and complete objectivity are the presuppositional myths of the modern secular outlook, and they are also the assumptions, sometimes unexamined, of many Christian thinkers”
In other words, in reality, there are nothing but presuppositions, and one of them is the whole idea of neutrality and objectively, which is supposedly the wrong presupposition. Therefore, exegesis cannot exist because it obviously requires objectivity to enable the text to educate and correct.
So, what to do? Where does one find the right presupposition? Answer: history. What is known as *Historicism,* teaches that truth must be found in the meta-narrative (grand story) of history. So therefore, the right presupposition to interpret truth must be found by determining the correct meta-narrative (primary theme of history). Geerhardus Voss, the father of BT, believed that the right meta-narrative was the redemptive history, or grand story of Jesus Christ. Therefore, we must go to the Scriptures with that presupposition. This is actually no different than postmodernism, which also rejects objective truth for a historical meta-narrative. John MacArthur bemoans this fact (that postmoderns trade objective truth for a historical narrative; namely, a Christocentric historical meta-narrative) in his book, “The Truth War.” Specifically, see pages 12, 14,and 36. There is absolutely no difference, which is my sixth point; BT is nothing more than postmodern thought in evangelical clothing. Absolutely.
Lastly, there is no possible way that Christians can follow Christ in objective love based on knowledge through a single presupposition. Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” We are to make disciples by “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:19,20). In reality, BT rejects God’s law for the nebulous.
Let me conclude by reviewing my seven points concerning BT:
1. Its claims are gargantuan and most likely not in the realm of reality.
2. It’s new.
3. It enslaves God’s people to biblical scholars.
4. It teaches that Christians are enslaved to presuppositions.
5. It rejects exegesis and objective truth.
6. It is postmodern thought.
7. It is anti-law
paul
Death by Good News: Living the “Gospel-Driven Life” Isn’t Really About Living “by” the Gospel
“The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness are not an exact replica of discipleship activity.”
“At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death.”
I could start this post by complaining about the lack of Scooby-Doo’s inquisitive “er?” among God’s people in regard to some concept of “living by the gospel” *every day,* but we’re way past that in our day and age. We have rather gone to the other kind of dogs; the one frantically running for the bacon flavored “Kibbles and Bits” while chanting, “I love bacon, I love bacon, I love bacon.” If it sounds good, it’s bacon baby. Never mind some possible chemical reaction taking place inside the cranium area that would insight a small, still voice saying: “Wait a minute here. We are saved by the gospel, which is a fairly narrow concept; how does one also live by that same narrow concept every day? Not only that, believing the gospel gets us into the kingdom, once in, why do the saved still need it?” I don’t know if I will ever get remarried or not, but certainly, if I were ever on a date and the lady asked such a question, it would be a sure sign from God.
But actually, I can answer that question. Yes, there is a sense in which we should live by the gospel every day. When we forgive somebody we are forgiving them in the same way that we were forgiven:
Ephesians 4:32
Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.
There you go, that’s living by the gospel, and we should most certainly practice that every day if necessary. What about patience towards others in the same way God was patient towards you until you surrendered your life to him?:
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
Again, this is living by the gospel. Yet another example, perhaps the most viable, is a daily dieing to self:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
Luke 9:23
Then he said to them all: “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Luke 14:27
And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.
Mark 8:35
For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me and for the gospel will save it.
Furthermore, daily service to others is living by the gospel:
Mark 10:45
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Pity though, this is not what proponents of the “gospel-driven life,” or Christocentric theology, or Christ centered (you fill in the blank), or gospel centered (fill in the blank), or cross centered (you fill in the blank), and Gospel Sanctification have in mind. But hold that thought. Even if they did have this in mind (which would be a good start), here are three major reasons why Gospel Sanctification would still be a fraud:
1. It’s a part of being a disciple and not the whole thing. We are not only called to live a cross-like life, we are also called to “follow” him:
Matthew 10:38
and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
For example, we are to follow Christ who also pleased God the Father in many other ways other than obedience to the cross. Before Christ went to the cross, here is what the Father said of Him:
Matthew 3:17
And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”
Christ said of Himself:
John 5:30
By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.
John 8:29
The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.”
All of these statements are before the cross. Walking as a disciple is more than cross-likeness, it is also observing “all that I have commanded” (Matthew 28:20).
2. The cross-centered gospel and cross-likeness is not an exact replica of discipleship activity. For example, we obeyed the gospel unto salvation by faith and repentance. As believers, we still repent daily, but it’s not the same kind of repentance that saved us, there is a difference. Specifically, it is the difference between repentance that justifies and repentance that takes place during sanctification. Jesus made it clear that there is a difference:
John 13:10
Jesus answered, “A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you.”
Christians have clean bodies (salvation); they now only need to wash their feet daily. Gospel Sanctification clearly teaches that we need the same gospel that saved us every day. This is impossible because to satisfy a connection with the gospel daily, we would need the same repentance, which is no longer needed by the believer. Not only that, the faith is not the same either. The gospel requires a faith alone. As J.C. Ryle rightly notes in his 20 letters on holiness, though the Scriptures say specifically that we are justified by faith alone, they never say we are sanctified by faith *alone.* In fact, James clearly states that the blessings of sanctification come “in” obedience (James 1:25) and not faith alone. Here is what J.C. Ryle said accordingly
“It is Scriptural and right to say faith alone justifies. But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say faith alone sanctifies.”
Simply stated, faith and repentance differ between justification (gospel) and sanctification. Therefore, we can live by the gospel implicitly as believers (note above examples), but not explicitly because the body has already been washed. The gospel can have serious implications to our lives as believers, but it is our goal to rather live out the commands of Christ as explicitly as we can. This is the second reason that Gospel Sanctification is a fraud.
3. To begin with, the gospel is not about the cross in totality. The gospel means “good news.” Though the cross is very, very, good news, it is not the only good news Jesus spoke of. In fact, the herald of the beginning of His ministry was the following:
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Matthew 9:35
Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness.
The good news was not just the cross, it was also the kingdom. As a matter of fact, the kingdom was a dominate theme in the presentation of the gospel throughout the book of acts, and in some cases, mentioned as separate from Christ in the same presentation:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Acts 19:8
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25
“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Acts 28:31
Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Even in the latter days just prior to the return of Christ, He said Himself,
Matthew 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
The “good news” is not only concerning God’s Son (Romans 1:9). The gospel (good news) of His Son, is also the good news of the kingdom. It begs the question: have Reformed teachers frantically erected a cross-only “good news” in fear that a future kingdom with Jewish implications will be discovered in the Scriptures? Is the constant drumbeat of a cross-only gospel building a scriptural Dome on the Rock? But more to the point, wouldn’t a *living by the kingdom* be much more applicable than living by a narrow (but none the less profound) cross-only *good news*? In fact, a *living by the kingdom* seems to be the dominate theme of the Sermon on the Mount. If we are going to live “by” something, or “according” to something daily, why would it not be a kingdom mandate rather than a once and for all washing of the body? After all, Christ’s mandate for the church was not to make disciples who observe the gospel everyday, but rather those who observe “all that I have commanded” which is much more indicative of kingdom living than the continual revisiting of the death, burial, and resurrection, which is often spoken of as a foundation that we build on, and other times we are even exhorted not to continually lay the same foundation:
Romans 15:20
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.
1 Corinthians 3:10
By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds.
1 Corinthians 3:11
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 3:12
If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw,
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God,
So, it is a pity that proponents of Gospel Sanctification do not at least propagate an implicit living *by* the gospel because it at least approaches Scriptural semblance. But then what does Michael Horton, Paul Tripp, John Piper, Tim Keller, and others mean when they speak of “living *by* the gospel”? It is simply the following:
1. The gospel is confined to the cross and finished work of Christ, there is no other *good news.*
2. We are sanctified by the “same” gospel that saved us.
3. We cannot not think that we are saved by “the gospel,” and then we can “move on to something else” [and I will give you three wild guesses as to what the “something else” is].
4. The Bible is a gospel narrative (only) that gives us the ability to continually revisit the gospel daily. As Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
Therefore, there will be a strong emphasis on teaching and preaching that focuses on the glory of God in the gospel only. Supposedly, meditating on various forms of the gospel and God’s glory from Scripture will change us “from the inside out.” There is no room here to discuss all of the various theories in regard to our supposed passive (obviously) participation in the sanctification process, but I can tell you that the teaching and preaching will be almost entirely vertical; and, all but completely void of practical application of biblical precepts. Think about it; what could you do to be saved? Well, if that same gospel sanctifies you, what can your participation be in the sanctification process? Not much. An excellent example of this is a book written by J.F. Strombeck in the forties entitled “Disciplined by Grace.” I believe that Jerry Bridges wrote a similar book entitled “The Discipline of Grace.” Strombeck’s book was a masterful work concerning the gospel of Christ and the glory of God, but the thesis of the book was that the realization of this is what disciplines us, not our own efforts. I would contend that it is both. At any rate, advocates of this doctrine go undetected because of their mastery in presenting the vertical realities of truth minus horizontal responsibility, and the application to life thereof, i.e., obedience. Can we have an abundant, God honoring life in Christ without our own effort being involved? I doubt it. In fact, such a way will rather lead to death. I will often hear Christians rave about a certain teacher or preacher, and inform me that I “must run now and get this book.” On several occasions, I have told them to point out practical application of biblical precepts as taught in the book, and if they can, then I will buy it. Per the usual, their initial response is an emphatic “no problem.” But later, they come back surprised that the book is void concerning hands-on instruction.
So what? Well, the following from Luke 6:46-49 is the “so what?”:
46 “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?
47 I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice.
48 He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.
49 But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”
First, we see that Christ expects to be Lord (master) in any legitimate relationship with Him. His question is obviously rhetorical. Because GS teachers despise any notion that we can colabor with God in sanctification, you can bet that they will not tolerate any inkling of what they perceive as self effort in justification. Therefore, repentance will often be conspicuously missing from their gospel presentations. As a result, you could well argue that they teach a false gospel based on this point alone:
Romans 10:12
For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, [you must call on Him as “Lord”].
Acts 5:31
” He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Acts 17:30
In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus [note they “must” have faith and repentance both].
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
Secondly, under “so what?“; Christ was also clear as to the ill effect on believers in regard to neglecting the art of applying God’s word to life in obedience:
“But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete” (Luke 6:49).
Therefore, those who sit under GS teachers receive a steady diet of the sweet stuff. It’s like the name of my favorite desert at Chilies: “Death by Chocolate.” Round-up a bunch of toddlers and feed them nothing but chocolate for two weeks and see what you get. It’s what the Neo-Reformed movement is looking like more and more as they are fed the unbalanced diet of the vertical only. Michael Horton’s favorite reference regarding biblical imperatives is, “it‘s just more bad news.” Really? To the contrary, an unbalanced diet of monergism in the sanctification process is really death by good news; what Jesus called a “complete destruction.”
paul
A Biblical View of Resurgent Church Discipline in a Neo-Reformed Era: Parts 1-4
As a blogger on WordPress, I have seen a significant spike in interest regarding church discipline. I think this is because of its recent resurgence in Reformed circles. My missionary son-in-law, David Ingram, informed me that a single article regarding church discipline on his ministry website is downloaded at least 60 times per month. Unfortunately, many of the search terms I see on WordPress stats are “unbiblical church discipline.” Furthermore, in a church culture vastly uninformed regarding church discipline to begin with, the subject is coming out of a Neo-Reformed theology that is morphing at break-neck speed. I can only assume that confusion is ruling the day on this subject. The following four essays are from my book and a recent post.
In part one, I attempt to give an overview of church discipline and some new approaches. In parts 2, 3 and 4, I explain how some of these new approaches effect counseling and other areas of church life. I sincerely hope it clarifies this issue for many. Keep in mind, on the published pdf files, you can zoom in for easier reading.
The links to each part are the following:
Part 1: http://eldersresolution.org/Discipline%20Part%201.PDF
Part 2: http://eldersresolution.org/Disciplne%20Part%202.PDF
Part 3: http://eldersresolution.org/Discipline%20Part%203.pdf
Part 4: http://eldersresolution.org/Discipline%20Part%204.PDF
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment