On The 114th Day of 2011 My True Love Gave to Me The Gospel Again
I guess this is confession time for me. It’s no big secret among those who know me well that I believe there is a death by gospel going on in the contemporary church. We get the gospel in almost every song we hear on CD / radio during the week. We get the gospel in almost every sermon heard on the radio / PC during the week. Then on Sunday—more gospel. Then the holidays come—more gospel with pomp and circumstance. For instance, it’s not enough that the song, “The Twelve Days Of Christmas”
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Days_of_Christmas ) is symbolic of twelve different truths found in the Bible
( http://www.carols.org.uk/the_twelve_days_of_christmas.htm ); hundreds have written their own “true” version making all twelve verses about the gospel
( http://lyricsplayground.com/alpha/songs/xmas/therealtwelvedaysofchristmas.shtml ).
Yes, every verse of a song, like the Bible, must be about the gospel. I look forward to the inevitable, “The 365 days of the Gospel” that will certainly be written by someone, and we are all sure that the church will be the better for it. And since Christ is no longer the King of kings and Lord of lords, the “my true love” part refers to Christ who is now, according to spiritual brainiacs like Francis Chan, our boyfriend and “lover.” Undoubtedly, the 114th day of 2011, Easter Sunday, will be no different. Furthermore, as I have sarcastically predicted before, and I will say again, the days of serving the Lord’s Table and re-baptizing every Sunday in Evangelical churches will eventually become reality as well.
Total gospel overload. Meanwhile, Christians suffer in the torture chamber some call “home.” Someone shared a situation with me last week concerning a sister (let’s call her “Maggie”) who is a member of a “thriving” church that emphasizes the gospel. They are what many call, “gospel centered.” Errrrrr, amen brother. Her husband, who is well respected in said church, has a pornography addiction. But praise ____: they hear the gospel every Sunday!
So, what’s my grip? Well, certainly NOT with the gospel (it means “good news”), but rather what most Christians have come to believe the gospel is: the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ ONLY. There is more to the gospel than that—the gospel is also good news about how we masterfully apply the word of God to our lives. Maggie needs some good news. Will she get it at church? I doubt it. The apostle Paul said Christians are called to peace, and Maggie isn’t finding much, even after here husband has heard 365 different versions of the gospel minus “anything we would do.” After all, “it’s not about anything we do, but what Christ has done.” Is that workin’ for Maggie? I doubt it.
Let me not write a book, but simply state my case. When Christ began his ministry, he went about proclaiming “the gospel” (Matt 4:23). What was that gospel? Our question is answered shortly thereafter in Matt 5:1-7:29; that section of Scripture is commonly known as the Sermon on the Mount. His death, burial, and resurrection is nowhere to be found in that sermon. The sermon is about our role in having life, and having it more abundantly. Certainly, without the works of Christ, there is no good news of the kingdom. But once we are in, Maggie should get more good news—Christ has some news concerning what he wants her to do about the circumstance she finds herself in. He will tell her: how to think about the problem; what attitude to have about the problem; how to pray about the problem; how other Christians should help her; what God himself promises to do about the problem; and lastly, what God expects her to do about the problem. And as a result of this information, Maggie not only finds a future hope, but a present hope. Christ came that we may not only have life more abundantly at the resurrection, but NOW also. Besides, the Maggie’s of the world make poor evangelist. Homes that can’t withstand the storms of life make poor shelter for a lamp (Matt 5:14 and Matt 7:24-27).
The gospel is cross centered indeed—but it is also problem centered. Um, in case anybody hasn’t noticed, the gospel addresses a problem: SIN. But then it addresses all of the other problems caused by sin—there’s a need for that, just in case no one has noticed. And also, just in case anybody missed it, Epahraditus didn’t almost die because Christ was doing everything for him.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 11: DA Carson Exposed in the Desert
I get my share of grief for identifying DA Carson as a primary proponent of the GS / Sonship doctrine. One reader recently challenged me by sending a Carson quote that was, of course, seemingly orthodox. So, I decided to do a GS / Sonship acid test, which seeks to determine if someone holds to the GS / Sonship view of Galatians 2 and 3. To test, you merely do a google search like this one: “DA Carson Galatians.” What came up was an annual convention sponsored by The Gospel Coalition at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The name of the event is “Clarus [year].” The annual event usually features two prominent teachers from the Sonship tribe. This particular seminar was “Clarus 2008,” and featured Carson teaming up with none other than Michael Horton.
The duo’s theme at this seminar was “Galatians and the Problem of Self Justification.” I listened to Carson’s message on Galatians 2:11-21 entitled “An Apostolic Disputation—and Justification.” Throughout all the tape that I listened to, the fawning enamoration from the members at Desert Springs, an obvious bastion of Sonship / GS doctrine, was obnoxiously evident as the listeners chuckled, laughed, and sighed at every clever phrase and profound utterance that came from Carson’s mouth. If your listening to that tape (mp3), you have to know these people are going to believe everything coming out of Carson’s mouth which is indicative of the Gospel Coalition’s cult of personality.
Aside from that, the message was a pure, unadulterated Sonship take on Galatians. Throughout the message, Carson speaks as if the daily details of Christian living have nothing to do with something called sanctification, but often used the word justification in that context, as the text does, but speaking with a flavor of ideas that we would normally associate with sanctification. Carson, and other Sonship proponents get away with this because most Christians don’t know the theological difference between justification and sanctification, which are in-fact biblical words / terms. Carson, in the same message, belittled the biblical idea of striving to please God as “having a good day,” and gives examples of how Christians supposedly pray about that, and thereby exposing their motives in trying to please God in their own efforts (not his words, but the same idea), which he likens to “spitting on the cross.” A usual mode of operation for GS teachers is to illustrate misguided attempts by Christians to please God (trying to do the right thing the wrong way) as proof that any striving on our part circumvents grace. It’s rarely about wrong application verses right application, but always a works / grace issue. This message was certainly no exception.
However, I have been a Christian for twenty-eight years and have never witnessed any of their extreme examples. Truly, GS propagators are the sultans of red herrings and straw men. But all in all, it can’t be denied that Carson’s message was primarily focused on Christian living in relationship to the law, and that using what text? Galatians 2:11-21. But, primarily, this text is about the law’s relationship to salvation, NOT Christian living. A much better text would have been Ephesians 4:17-32. If you examine all their (the GS brain trust) teachings carefully, the idea of Christian living and salvation (declared / imputed righteousness as a onetime act of God) are almost always synthesized. It is very subtle, but for instance, in Paul Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Seminary entitled “Playing With the Box” (Spring 2007), his introduction clearly concerns the gospel, but the body of the message clearly concerns sanctification in context of the gospel theme. Therefore, again, if one pays attention, their teachings on Christian living are almost always set in a gospel context that distorts the law’s role in sanctification / regeneration. It cannot be denied that they make no distinction between salvation and life application of God’s word.
Carson also taught in the same message that whenever Paul said “law” in Galatians, that Paul was referring to the “law covenant.” Um, this is a smoking gun. Most GS advocates are New Covenant theologians. NCT holds to the idea that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, which was the law covenant. Traditionally, orthodox evangelicals believe that even though the New Covenant is “better,” elements of the old are still intact, especially the law. In other words, the covenants build on each other. In Ephesians 2:12, the apostle Paul makes being alienated from Christ synonymous with being “strangers to the covenants.” Notice “covenants” is in the plural, not singular, then Paul later makes an Old Covenant application to life in Ephesians 6:1-3. Please note the following reference concerning proponents of NCT and the familiar suspects of GS:
“The last twenty-five years have seen a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Peter Ditzel, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer. The writings of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson on the relation of the Christian to the law reveal their sympathies with NCT. However they have not wanted themselves to be so labeled. John Piper also has many points of contact with this movement, but an article at Desiring God carefully distinguishes his position from the Covenant, New Covenant and Dispensational theological systems” (Theopedia,com).
That’s another GS mode of operation, avoiding labels to prevent detection, but these men are clearly in the NCT camp which is a tenet of GS doctrine. This is why I seriously doubt Michael Horton is a Covenant theologian regardless of what he or anyone else claims. His joined at the hip verbiage with Carson at the Q and A sessions of Clarus 08 also makes that difficult to believe as well. Furthermore, in the same message, Carson insinuated that Christians are not obligated to the law (a proper view of that text in Galatians should add “not for justification” after each consideration), but should obey the law as a way of being a Gentile for the sake of the Gentiles in the same way that Paul “became a Jew for the sake of the Jews.” But moreover, he added the warning that we should not do it in a way that gives people the idea that we can actually keep the law as Christians because, as he said earlier in the message: “….we just aren’t [we (Christians) aren’t (present tense)] good enough….consistent enough….whole enough.” Of course, the apostle Paul saw a difference between Christian liberty and upholding the law; Carson makes no such distinction in the same message.
In the Q and A sessions, Horton and Carson agree on the GS dichotomy of law and gospel, without including any clarification in regard to how that would relate to sanctification verses justification. This kind of ambiguity saturated the Q an A’s and the aforementioned message I listened to. Horton and Carson also paid homage to Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney—further demonstrating their kinship with Sonship / GS doctrine.
The classic GS / Sonship take on Galatians 1-5 as being about sanctification is also noted by Eastwood Presbyterian Church in their formal contention ( http://goo.gl/rODyO ) against Sonship theology: “Further, we think Sonship makes a serious exegetical error in its dealings with the book of Galatians: Sonship wrongly identifies the Galatian problem as one dealing with sanctification instead of justification.” In his message, Carson relates Galatians to how we live as Christians, but cleverly calls it justification (to match Paul’s terminology) as if works can only be classified in the justification category. However, his subject matter is clearly that of which would be placed in the regeneration / sanctification category.
Carson’s close association with Horton should be noted as well because Horton is more forthright in how he propagates their Quietist doctrine: http://goo.gl/y03xn
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
Doctrine
Manuscript for Wednesday evening Bible study, Germantown Baptist Chapel, February 9, 2011
I begin this message tonight with some angst that has probably become normal among teachers of our day because it seems that the whole subject of doctrine has become taboo. A basic definition of doctrine from Dictionary.com is: “A particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government….something that is taught; teachings collectively….a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject.” Doctirne is a word in the Bible and concurs with the definitions just cited in regard to its biblical use. Doctrine is not to be confused with theology which is the study of deity, and may include information concerning the doctrines (systems of thinking) of many different religions.
My first point tonight will be: every living human being has, and operates by a doctrine – whether they are conscience of it or not. Here is a quote from an article I posted recently:
“….everybody on earth lives by a doctrine. Everybody that breaths. Atheism, for example, is a doctrine. Secondly, doctrine determines how you live, no exception. For instance, Nihilism is the doctrine of nothing. But yet, this was the doctrine embraced by the young man who recently tried to assassinate a US senator while murdering nine others. Lyrics from the song, ‘The Nothing Doctrine’ by Neaera, a rock band that promotes Nihilism, might give some insight into his actions: ‘Almighty uncreator, I am your eyes, I am your ears, I am your mouth, let your grandest hatred echo in my deprivation, a willing bearer of your creed to consecrate the void.’”
Romans 2: 21-23 validates the view that all live by a belief system, or doctrine:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.”
In verse 22, their supposed wisdom is their doctrine, which resulted from their thinking (verse 21); specifically, “futile” thinking. There are only two choices presented here in verse 21: knowledge of God and all other knowledge. It starts with thinking apart from God’s knowledge, and leads to false wisdom/doctrine.
This brings me to my second point: thinking forms our life. When we choose a path of thinking apart from God, that thinking is futile by the very definition of being apart from God, a system of false doctrine is formed, whether a religious flavor or not, and the thinking thereof forms our life. Proverbs 23:6 states it this way:
“Do not eat the bread of a selfish man, Or desire his delicacies; 7 For as he thinks within himself, so he is….”
Proverbs 27:19 says: “As water reflects the face, so one’s life reflects the heart [mind].”
As can be seen in Matthew 9:4, “heart” is an idiom for the mind: “And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, ‘Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?” Luke 9:47 says, “But Jesus, knowing what they were thinking in their heart, took a child and stood him by His side….” Therefore, Proverbs 27:19 says that a persons life reflects their thinking.
The fact that thinking forms life can also be seen in the previous text we were looking in, Romans chapter 1. In verse 21, they reject the knowledge of God. In the latter part of verse 21, their thinking becomes futile, dark and foolish. In verse 22, they are deceived into thinking that are wise. Then, further descriptions of their thinking is interwoven with a downward spiral concerning life. In verse 24, their minds are consumed by lust. In verse 25, this all happens because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie. In verse 26, the mind becomes totally dominated by passions. And in verse 28, since they did not see fit to knowledge God, they are given up to a debased what?….Mind. Get the picture? In Genesis 6:5, we read the following:
“ The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.”
Now my third point: Thinking also forms the life of a Christian for better or for worse. Regarding the spiritual life of a Christian, how we think is everything. In fact, the mind is the battleground of the Christian faith, and doctrine organizes and defines those thoughts; therefore, doctrine is of paramount concern. Christ’s mandate to the church was to make disciples, and then teach them to observe all that He commanded. Throughout the Gospels, Christ prefaced his teachings constantly with this statement: “What do you think?” In Matthew alone we see: Matthew 5:17 “Do not think….” Matthew 9:4 “Why are you thinking evil….” Matthew 10:34 “Do not think….” Matthew 17:25 “What do you think, Simon?” Matthew 18:12 “Do not think….” Matthew 21:28 “But what do you think?” Matthew 22:42 “What do you think….” Matthew 24:44 “….do not think….” Matthew 26:53 “Or do you think….” Matthew 26:66 “What do you think?”
Ephesians 4:20-24 makes it clear that as Christians we endeavor to transform our mind through the Spirit and His word:
“That, however, is not the way of life you learned 21 when you heard about Christ and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. 22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.”
These verses are the crux of sanctification. Old thinking is to be put away and replaced with new thinking which renews the mind and results in righteousness. To the degree that we do that, we grow spiritually. Everyone here tonight has an ample supply of thinking that needs to go bye-bye, and as far as new thinking, the mind of Christ is the goal.
In John 16:7, Christ said that He would send us the Helper, and in John 17:17, He said that we are sanctified with the truth, and God’s word is that truth. So, we have all we need – the Spirit and the truth, God’s word. Matthew 4:4 says we live by every word that comes from the mouth of God – not some words from God and some from Oprah Winfrey. Not some from God and some from Sigmund Freud. Again, if we revisit Ephesians 4, prior to verse 20, and 21, it is implied that there are only two ways to think, or two ways of life to be learned: the way of Christ and all other ways.
This whole concept of thinking being the primary battleground of sanctification can be seen in 2Corinthians 10:3-6:
“For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4 The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. 6 And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.”
We take every thought captive (our own thoughts and the thoughts of others) and make them obedient to Christ. Every bit of knowledge that doesn’t align with God’s truth is a pretense against His word, and we are to demolish them. That’s the warfare. Paul also said the following in Romans 12:2:
“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [how are we transformed? By the renewing of what? And the condition of our minds are determined by what? Our….thinking. And Ephesians 4 says we change that by….]. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will” We read the following in 1Peter 1:13-15 [Read 1Peter 1: 13-15 ]. Why is it always important to prepare our minds for action? Because that’s where the battleground is. And what is the battle? That our thinking would not be conformed to anything but the truth of God’s word. Period.
Therfore:
“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1Timothy 4:16).
Sound doctrine organizes God’s truth and reveals old thinking that needs to be demolished. It is shocking that Christians have bought into the whole idea of tolerance towards pretenses that set themselves against the knowledge of God. It is shocking that Christians have bought into the idea that there are appropriate / inappropriate venues for sound doctrine. Our venue is anywhere thinking is going on.
Fourthly, our doctrine must be what Peter called the “pure milk” of the word in 1Peter 2:2:
“Like newborn babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation”
Not tainted, and nothing mixed in. In John 16:7, Christ said that He would send us the Helper, and in John 17:17, He said that we are sanctified with the truth, and God’s word is that truth. So, we have all we need – the Spirit and the truth, God’s word. Matthew 4:4 says we live by every word that comes from the mouth of God – not some words from God and some from Oprah Winfrey. Not some from God and some from Sigmund Freud. Again, if we revisit Ephesians 4, prior to verse 20, and 21, it is implied that there are only two ways to think, or two ways of life to be learned: the way of Christ and all other ways. Therefore, doctrine must be apart from the world, and it must be according to pure biblical truth. Religious doctrine always contains truth tainted with unbiblical thinking. Therefore, Paul instructed Timothy accordingly:
“As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer “ (1Timothy 1:3).
Hence, pastors must be able to defend doctrine:
“He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9).
It is shocking that Christians are defensive when their thinking is challenged, as if they have very little thinking to put off and put on. A growing Christian can point to consistent markers in his life where wrong thinking is exposed by the word of God and replaced with true thinking, and applied to life accordingly. This is why we are always in the word and sitting under sound doctrine: because we are looking for old thinking to put off, and new truth to put on, and instruction regarding how that truth is skillfully applied to life. As a Christian, can you point to those markers and say it is true of your life?
As a church, can we point to markers where old thinking doesn’t align with God’s word and new truth is applied accordingly, or have we arrived? If we haven’t arrived, where is the old thinking? Brothers and sisters, in our minds and In the church, it is surely lurking about somewhere. Where there is change, there is life, where things stay the same, death. Christ is serious about this. He was teaching one day when his family came to speak with Him:
“Now Jesus’ mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20 Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you.’ 21 He replied, My mother and brothers are those who hear God’s word and put it into practice.’”
In Luke 11, we observe the following:
27 As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.” 28 He replied, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it.”
Jesus is well aware of His own greatness, what He wants is the perfect will of God proven on Earth.
Learning the word to expose old thinking, learning new, and applying it to our lives; that’s the primary business of a Christian. Again, noting Romans 12:2, when we are doing this as individuals, and together as a church, that is when we can prove the perfect will of God, but only when that is, in fact, what we are doing.
At salvation, we are given a love for the truth as noted by contrasting us with the world in 2Thessalonians 2:10. We have been given the Helper, and we have been given God’s pure milk. Let us take these and prove the perfect will of God.
Let us pray.
“That’s Not True”: Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification Statement
I can tell Susan will be a huge help on the second edition of “Another Gospel” which is an apology against Gospel Sanctification. Basically, the doctrine makes sanctification and justification the same thing. However, I never cease to be amazed at how difficult it is for Christians to get their mind around this doctrine and its ramifications. One reason is the fact that the following is true: both sanctification and justification share some of the same progressive elements, but GS makes them entirely synonymous which translates, for all practical purposes, into Antinomianism which has always been deemed heretical by evangelicals.
Susan seems to have a decent grasp on several issues spawned by GS, but like many, she is still working at putting it all together. Then it happened. We were at a basketball game and she picked up a book I had brought with me, opened it, and just started reading. Then, about a minute later, she said the following: “That’s not true.” I then inquired, “what isn’t true?” She pointed me to the Preface where Phillip Carey writes the following in “Good News for Anxious Christians”:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I then replied to her: “Honey, that’s Gospel Sanctification.” Ah, the power of concise statements, and it’s very unlikely this essay won’t be added to the book in revised form. First, most proponents of GS recognize that the doctrine is not orthodox. This can be seen in Cary’s admission via the first sentence: “Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe.” No Phillip, many of us find it odd, not just “some”. Like another advocate of GS said, “the vast majority” of Christians find it odd (Tullian Tchividjian). Another advocate, Paul David Tripp, described those who find it odd as “hordes of.” This is a characteristic of those who propagate GS – they think they are modern-day reformers. In fact, Michael Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” The arrogance that comes with this mentality lags not far behind.
Secondly, we see the GS tenet of justification not being a one time, final act of God in the following two sentences: “I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure out how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives.” Though advocates of GS deceptively refer to this as “progressive sanctification,” it’s really progressive justification which is totally unorthodox. Another example of this would be Paul Tripp’s belief that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” and not glorification. If you think it smacks of a daily re-saving / salvation, consider this comment made on Justin Taylor’s blog:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins.”
Next, we see the GS tenet of sanctification by faith alone in this sentence: “ We become new people in Christ by faith alone…” Again, another tenet that is totally unorthodox. JC Ryle said:
“It thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
But, keep in mind, according to the GS doctrine, sanctification is justification.
Next, we see the tenet of “the imputed active obedience of Christ”( Another way advocates state IAOC is “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event”) in this sentence from the same aforementioned statement: “We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.” So, if we can’t even let God enable us, who obeys? Jesus does, he obeys for us. This is also indicative of the GS tenet that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ while we remain “totally depraved,” and “enslaved” to sin. Obviously, if we are still totally depraved, we can’t obey, Jesus must obey for us. This tenet is propagated throughout “How People Change,” a book written by Paul Tripp.
Lastly, we see the GS proclamation that co-laboring with Christ in the sanctification process is a false gospel ( …”not by our good works”). Paul Tripp states this in no uncertain terms when he said that even the passive endeavor of changing our thinking to align with Scripture effectively “denies the work of Christ as Savior.” He has also described any effort of ours at all in the sanctification process as “Christless activism.” In fact, this is also Michael Horton’s thesis for his book “Christless Christianity.”
So there you have it. The tenets of GS: progressive justification (which excludes sanctification); sanctification by faith alone; the total depravity of the saints; the imputation of obedience (Christ obeys for us); and monergistic sanctification (the only true gospel).
The doctrine is propagated by many well known, supposedly mainline evangelical leaders of our day. Primarily, it boils down to being an antinomian, let go and let God theology. How the doctrine articulates the use of the gospel only in the sanctification process is another body of information.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments