Do You Misrepresent Obedience? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian: Part 2
“Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us.”
In part one, we looked at how teachers misrepresent the Pharisees as those who were proficient in upholding God’s word “outwardly.” Supposedly, the Pharisees were impressive in regard to their ability to do that, but only received condemnation from Christ as a result. The conclusion of the matter? You can’t please God by “trying” to keep the Law. And in almost every case where this thesis is presented in a sermon or Bible lesson the following is also continually emphasized: “You can’t be saved by keeping the Law.” This confuses the role of the Law in justification verses sanctification.
We also looked at the fact that the basis of this proposition is erroneous. The Lord’s primary beef with the Pharisees was not their “efforts” to keep the Law, but the fact that they modified the Law of God to fit their man-made traditions and rules (Mark 7:8-13). We will now look at the other erroneous part of this assertion; namely, efforts at keeping the Law are always an outward affair. In other words, obedience pertains to the outward only; so, because the Pharisees supposedly focused on obedience to the Law, they were only “cleaning the outside of the cup,” and were “whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones.” And since (don’t miss this) inside change is such a complex affair, we can’t “reduce the Bible to a bunch of do’s and dont’s,” and “live our lives by lists.” So then, since *all change* is from the “inside out,” and Christ is the one who changes us, what follows is many theories on how that happens.
And trust me, the theories are not in short supply. They mostly entail being wowed by who Christ is as a person which is learned from the scriptures and general revelation (creation). Therefore, change by enamoration; when we realize how awesome Christ is and what He has done for us, joyful obedience naturally follows without any effort on our part. There is also “intelligent repentance” which is a complex system of discovering sin in our heart. When we discover sin deep in our heart, and repent of it through prayer, our heart is emptied of sin, leaving a void which Christ fills with Himself, resulting in Him obeying for us. There is also the inside change by prayer only angle as well.
The above theories propagate the idea that obedience has no curative value and is merely a natural result (and therefore essentially outward) of something more complex; Christians have swallowed this concept hook, line, and sinker. However, biblical obedience is both inside and outside, and Christ rebuked the Pharisees for neglecting inside obedience; that is what He meant by accusing them of being whitewashed tombs. Let me explain. In Matthew 23:23-28, Christ confronts the Pharisees with both examples of the whitewashed tomb and cup that is only clean on the outside.
But first, in verse 23, it is very apparent that He chides them because they “neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” These have to do with attitudes. At least one, mercy, is among the beatitudes listed at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount by Christ, and the other two have similar implications among the other eight beatitudes. In regard to the cup illustration, Christ said the Pharisees were “full of greed and self-indulgence.” Outwardly, they put on a show to appear righteous to others (so they probably didn’t even obey outwardly when in private), but on the inside of the cup they were greedy (selfish) and self-serving. This isn’t rocket science; for example, I was very comfortable on Susan’s couch last night while watching my favorite show on the Fox News Channel. Then Susan came into the dinning area (which is open to the family room), and started clearing off the table to get it ready to be set for me and four others. That’s when the Holy Spirit kicked me in the conscience and I was either going to die to self (obey) or not. My outward obedience in helping her set the table began with inward obedience. And by the way, she could have probably cared less if I helped or not; I did it to please Christ.
In verses 27 and 28, Christ uses the same kind of illustration (whitewashed tombs) regarding the fact that the Pharisees were full of “lawlessness” on the inside. In other words, their minds / thoughts were saturated with things like lust, covetousness, and revenge while being concerned with outward appearances to impress others (motives). One of the primary reasons God judged the Earth via the flood was the rampant lawlessness of the mind (Genesis 6:5). The fact that God calls for an inward obedience to Godly thinking is clear. Paul said in 2Corinthians 10:5 that we are to “take every thought captive to obey Christ.”
In addition, it is important to note that inside obedience and outside obedience work together to bring about change. Change is impossible without the inside work of the Holy Spirit, but *all* change is not from the inside out, it’s *both.* The Holy Spirit is our “helper,” and he helps us with our role in the sanctification process: inside and outside obedience (John 14:12-17). Regarding the fact that inside and outside obedience work together for change, let me illustrate. Here is what Christ said in Matthew 6:19-21:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”
The counsel from Christ to store up treasure in heaven rather than on Earth is imperative and precedes the location of our heart. Stop investing on Earth, start investing in Heaven. It’s a matter of investment; where we invest is where our hearts will be. Is it not obvious that many marriages have come to ruin because one or both spouses invested in a career rather than each other? We also see this in one of Paul’s imperatives: “Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). Ie., stop investing in evil, start investing in good. Cling to the one and neglect the other. Our love *must* be sincere, and the key is where we invest as a matter of obedience – feelings will follow. Also, Romans 12:2 plainly says how our minds are transformed; conformity to the mind of Christ rather than the world.
Therefore, any teaching that devalues the necessity of our obedience to biblical imperatives is detrimental to spiritual growth and makes us slaves to our emotions. We have this great hope as Christians: if we do not like where our heart is, we can do something about it and the Holy Spirit will help us. Paul said it like this in Philippians 4:8,9;
“Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.”
In this passage we have inside obedience, outside obedience, and the God of “peace” with us.
Brothers and sisters I beg you: flee from any teacher who toys with the biblical concept of obedience.
paul
Do you Misrepresent the Pharisees? Well Then, You Just Might Be an Antinomian
I heard it again yesterday in a Sunday morning message: the Pharisees were really,really good at keeping the Law, but at the end of the day Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. Alas, proof that we can’t be justified by keeping the Law (which no one would argue with). The pastor, in this message that is one of many in his series on The Sermon on the Mount, even said something like this: “The Pharisees’ efforts at keeping the Law wasn’t the issue, they were good at keeping the Law.” But is that true? And by the way, considering who the audience was at that church (primarily saints gathered for worship and the hearing of the word), and the fact that his topic was the role of the Law in Christian living, why was he even discussing justification in that context? Based on his view of the Pharisees and their supposed efforts to be justified by keeping the Law, one of his statements to *us* was “you don’t keep the Law by trying to keep the Law.” Hmmm, really?
We certainly are not justified by “trying” to keep the Law, but should we try to keep the Law in order to please and obey our Lord? Yes, I think so. Now, I don’t know this pastor very well, but I know him well enough to know that he wouldn’t dream of synthesizing justification and sanctification, but due to the fact that our present church culture is awash in an antinomian doctrine that does just that, are pastors propagating such a synthesis unawares? Yes, I think so. In his sermon notes, the top of the page has statements like ”Things Jesus wants us (“us” would presumably be Christians) to know about the Law.” The top part of the notes are also replete with “we” in regard to the Law, but the bottom part has statements like: “We live in the Age of Grace; salvation is not of works,” but yet, the whole message clearly regards the role of the Law in the life of a Christian. Therefore, whether unawares or otherwise, he clearly extended the relationship of the Law in regard to Justification into the realm of sanctification.
Here is where we must call on our good friend Jeff Foxworthy who developed a program for helping people who may be rednecks but don’t know it. He presents several different questions from different angles of thought, and depending on the answers to the questions, “you just might be a redneck.” Likewise, if you misrepresent the Pharisees, you just might be an antinomian without knowing it.
First of all, we can see from the very same proof text used to demonstrate the idea above that the Pharisees were not guilty of attempting to keep the Law in order to be justified:
[19] “Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:19,20).
So, as the reasoning goes, verse 19 indicates that “we” should revere God’s Law, but since the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the Law (an assumed interpretive criteria) we shouldn’t “try” to keep the Law because that’s what they tried to do, and our righteousness must surpass theirs because you can’t be saved by keeping the Law (and again, why are we discussing salvation in this context to begin with?). But we can see just from this text alone that this interpretation is not true. In every literal English translation that I could find, the coordinating conjunction “for” links verses 19 and 20. As we know, coordinating conjunctions join two complete ideas together and indicates the connection between the two. In all cases, the translators saw fit to translate the conjunction “for” from the Greek texts. If Jesus was contrasting the two ideas, a different conjunction would have been used like “but,” ie., the Pharisees do verse 19 really well, “but” not perfectly, therefore you need a righteousness that is perfect (this is true, but not what Christ is referring to here). No, the conjunction used is “for” which indicates “reason”(reason why): because the Pharisees were guilty of verse 19, they (the audience) were not going to enter the kingdom of heaven if they where like the Pharisees in regard to habitually breaking the Law of God and teaching others to do so. Also, I think the Lord’s reference to being the least or the greatest “in the kingdom” (verse 19) is in reference to degree and set against the example of the Pharisees who were guilty of doing (breaking the Law and teaching others to do so) habitually which was an indication that their souls were in peril. Therefore, even if the assumption regarding the Pharisees ability to obey the Law outwardly is true, it’s the wrong transition; a better transition would be “but” and would read something like this: “Christians should obey the Law ‘but’ even if you keep the law as good as the Pharisees do, it will not get you into the kingdom, so you need a righteousness that surpasses theirs.”
Granted, depending on how you diagram the sentence, you might be able to make a case either way, but is it true that the Pharisees were experts at keeping the Law outwardly? No. From other Scriptures we know that the Pharisees were guilty of verse nineteen; specifically, they replaced the Law with their own traditions. That’s why Jesus immediately launches into the whole “you have heard that it was said….but I tell you”starting in the following sentence (verse21). Not only that, Jesus says specifically in Matthew 15:1-9 that His contention with the Pharisees (and the teachers of the law as exactly referred to in verse 20) was the fact that they twisted the Scriptures according to their traditions:
[1] Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, [2]”Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”[3] Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? [4] For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ [5] But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ [6] he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. [7] You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: [8] ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. [9] They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'”
The Pharisees were not proficient at keeping God’s law outwardly. In fact, they didn’t do so at all, but rather propagated teachings that were “rules taught by men.” Therefore, the Pharisees were guilty of neglecting the true Law and teaching others to do so (Matthew 5:19). They were not the poster-children for some campaign to demonstrate the futility of Law-keeping, especially in regard to believers. In fact, Christ said their lax attitude toward the Law was indicative of those who will not enter the kingdom. For this reason the Pharisees were not the greatest in heaven as the masses supposed, but the least, if they were even in the kingdom at all. Therefore, when Christ told the crowd that their righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, He wasn’t talking about the imputed righteousness of Christ that the Pharisees were supposedly trying to obtain themselves for salvation (besides, they were not attempting to do that to begin with as I have demonstrated), but rather the true righteous behavior demanded of kingdom citizens. If Christ was talking about an imputed righteousness (for sanctification), why would He have not simply said so? For example: “Your righteousness must not only exceed that of the Pharisees (which wouldn’t have been hard to do anyway, and therefore by no means a profound statement by Christ), but ( a contrast conjunction) must be a righteousness that comes from God alone”…for sanctification.
If you misrepresent the Pharisees as the first century poster-children for “let go and let God theology” because they supposedly tried to keep the Law, you just might be an antinomian. But in part two, we discuss another question that may give credence to the possibility: Do you misrepresent obedience as outward alone? Well then, you just may be an antinomian.
paul
Francis Chan’s “Crazy Love” is Really Antinomian Puppy-Love
“He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….’commands.’ In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: ‘Do you feel free in your Christian life?'”
Before I comment on “Crazy Love” by Francis Chan (2008), let me set the table. There is a “let go and let God” theology sweeping through Christianity which is sometimes referred to as “Gospel Sanctification.” Hereafter, I will refer to it as “GS.” Let go and let God theology, for all practical purposes, is antinomianism because it either advocates an inability to uphold the Law by Christians or the view that Christians are not obligated to uphold it in God’s eyes. Either way, use of the Law in the life of a Christian is denied.
Basically, GS teaches that we are sanctified in the exact same way that we are justified, by faith and repentance alone. Therefore, if the Law (by this term “Law” I mean the Scriptures in general and imperatives in particular) can’t save us, neither can it be used or recognized in sanctification either. They use Galatians 3:2,3 as a proof text for this position.
Secondly, it teaches that Christ came to not only die for our sins, but to fulfill the law by obeying it perfectly with His life. In essence, it teaches that Christ obeyed the Law for us, and His perfect obedience and fulfillment of the Law is imputed to us in the same way righteousness is imputed to us in salvation by faith alone. Therefore, we are not obligated to the Law. This is sometimes referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.”
Thirdly, It teaches that Christ not only fulfilled the Law, but replaced it with a new Law that only has one command: love God and others. Furthermore, in only being obligated by this one Law, our proper fulfillment of this one Law is judged by our intentions and conscience, not necessarily biblical imperatives. They use Matthew 22: 36-40 as a proof text for this position.
Fourthly, according to advocates, acts of true love will always be accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. Nothing should ever be done out of mere duty. The old Christian adage “obey God whether you feel like it or not” is considered to be anathema. Acts of true love are often described as a “mere natural flow.”
Fifthly, GS propagates the idea that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ working through the Holy Spirit. That’s why true love can always be expected to be a mere natural flow, because it is really Christ doing the work through us. They use Galatians 2:20 as a proof text for this position. This text is also used to advocate sanctification by faith alone.
Sixthly, sanctification is only accomplished through faith and deep introspection for purposes of repentance, which empties our soul of sin, and results in Christ living through us.
Seventh, the Bible’s sole purpose is to aid us in faith and repentance. As we see “pictures of Jesus” in the Bible, we learn more about who He is, and see Him more clearly. Our faith is then increased and we are changed from “glory to glory” (2 Corinthians 3:18 is the proof text for that). The Bible also aids us in looking deep within our souls to see sin that we need to repent of. In addition, all of the vast imperatives we see in the Bible makes us more thankful for Christ, knowing that we could never uphold all of those commands and He has done it for us. Thank goodness they (commands) have all been abrogated by the love of Christ working through us, according to them, that is.
Eighth, since the primary goal is to know more of who Christ is (as opposed to learning what He has said for the purpose of applying it to our lives), which increases our faith and love for Him, we don’t necessarily limit that knowledge to Scripture. General revelation is seen as being almost as valuable, because the idea is to get to know Christ as a person, “not a cognitive concept that we apply to life” (Paul David Tripp). This is eerily similar to Postmodern thinking.
Obviously, I wouldn’t have gone through all of the trouble to explain the above if I didn’t think “Crazy Love” (hereafter “CL”) propagated Gospel Sanctification. Per the usual, advocates of GS partake in careful word-craft; it goes without saying that my before-stated description would be rejected out of hand by most Evangelicals. Though there are hints of GS in the first half of the book, the doctrine is not prevalent until page 101, thats when elements of the doctrine start becoming obvious.
Somewhat unique in CL is the heavy dose of “Jesus is my boyfriend” theology. Chan pours this on really thick, even by John Piper’s standard, who is also an advocate of GS. Piper, who likens true saving faith to a deep, romantic-like love for Christ, is quoted at least once in CL. Let’s face it, if we can’t love our Lord by obeying “everything I have commanded,” (as in most GS based books, the Lordship of Christ is conspicuously missing) then something else has to fill the gap; such as, a “sincere,” syrupy like romantic love similar to teenage puppy-love. In fact, according to Chan, regarding the account of his grandmother’s relationship with Christ: He was her “lover” (p. 100).
Throughout the book, Chan draws conclusions about how we should experience our relationship with Christ from horizontal relationships; namely, romantic ones. Hence, “Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.” This is indicative of the eighth element, which puts general revelation on the same par with specific revelation (The Bible). There is a very heavy dose of this in the beginning of the book as Chan emphasizes the study of creation in order to understand Christ as a “person.” Chan also uses the GS phrase “word pictures” to describe the Bible throughout CL. On pages 34 and 35, Chan categorizes general revelation and the Bible together as two ways of knowing God as set against what we can’t know about Him: “So far we have talked about things we can see with our own eyes, things we know about creation, and some of the attributes of God as revealed in the Bible. But many facets of God expand beyond our comprehension.”
Besides an overemphasis on general revelation as a matching bookend with specific revelation, there is only a hint of the GS doctrine in the first 100 pages. The first thing I began to notice was the dissing of practical application and obedience, which are both antithetical to GS doctrine. In regard to our supposed paramount goal of knowing Christ as a person rather than what he demands of us (number eight), Chan says the following on page 30: “If the ‘gravest question’ before us really is what God Himself is like, how do we learn to know Him?” Is the “gravest” question before Christians that of who God is? Or, is what God wants us to do of equal importance? I think we know the answer to that, and a balanced perspective by Chan is conspicuously missing throughout the book.
Then on page 101, Chan takes a hard left turn and launches into full-blown GS doctrine. After denying throughout the book (in nuanced fashion) that we are slaves obligated to obey Christ (because that doesn’t fit the gushy *Jesus as boyfriend* prism), and that God would use fear, guilt, or reward to motivate us, he says that Galatians 5:13-14 teaches the following: “When we love, we’re free! We don’t have to worry about a burdensome load of commands, because when we are loving, we can’t sin. Do you feel free in your Christian life?”
Just please stop and think about what he is saying. Words mean things. He is clearly saying that when we love we are free from the Law; in fact, we don’t have to worry about….”commands.” In other words, love is measured by some other standard than biblical imperatives, presumably, good feelings. Do you think that is unfair of me to say? Well then, look at how he wants you to determine if you are loving or not: “Do you feel free in your Christian life?” And: When we work for Christ out of obligation, it feels like work. But when we truly love Christ, our work is a manifestation of that love, and it feels like love” (page 110). Is that true? Does obedience to Christ always “feel (s) like love”?
The whole line of thought here clearly falls under element number three of GS doctrine. Furthermore, let’s be good Bereans and take a look at Galatians 5:13-14, the biblical text Chan cites to make his point:
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
Paul is talking about our freedom from the Law in regard to being saved, and then using it as an excuse to live any way we want to: “Hey, I’m saved anyway, and the Law can’t get me into heaven, so why not live any way I want to?” Because it’s self-focused and the antithesis of love, that’s why. But Paul is not saying that love has no standard other than itself because it replaced the Law. That is a classic antinomian misrepresentation of that passage. In the same statement, Chan even comforts his readers by assuring them that they are not sinning by loving apart from biblical imperatives / guidelines: “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin” [that’s why we supposedly don’t need to worry about “burdensome commands”].
Chan reiterates his point by quoting the apostle in verse 6 of the same chapter: “The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” This doesn’t mean, as Chan implies, that love interprets itself because it comes from an undefined realization of who Christ is via a personal, nebulous, and supposedly intimate relationship. Do you think that is unfair as well? Here is what Chan says on page 104: “Something mysterious, even supernatural must happen in order for genuine love for God to grow in our hearts. The Holy Spirit has to move in our lives. It is a remarkable cycle: Our prayers for more love result in love, which naturally causes us to pray more, which results in more love….” The “cycle” that Chan describes here is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, but rather, “If you love me, keep my commandments.” Or, “Peter, do you love me? …. [then] feed my sheep.” At the very least, Chan is propagating a love that always comes naturally through a cycle of prayer only. In the best case that can be surmised, he is clearly in serious error.
Also, Chan forgets to mention that the apostle Paul also said: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1Corinthians 7:19). About a year ago, I counseled a fellow who was having trouble with a church leadership that propagates the GS doctrine. He was utterly perplexed as to why they seemed to completely ignore clear biblical directives regarding his situation. The answer is simple: if their motive was love, they did not deem themselves as obligated to biblical imperatives. Throughout the rest of the book, Chan seems to make strong statements regarding the need to obey, but what he is talking about is obedience to the one single Law of love, not biblical imperatives. This is the type of double-speaking deception that I have come to expect from propagators of the GS doctrine.
Throughout the rest of the book after page 101, Chan draws a tight GS line that propagates spiritual growth by a narrow, passive concept of meditation and prayer only (p. 104, 148, 170, to cite a few), and acts of love always experienced as a mere natural flow accompanied by joy (p. 110, 120, 129, to name a few). It is fair to say that the second half of the book is saturated with GS doctrine in its usual nuanced form. But page 203 is worth mentioning before I close. Chan presents Galatians 3:3 as a Pauline contention against effort in the sanctification process which is also supposedly a false gospel. This is a typical GS stance. Concerning this passage, Chan says the following:
“I think each of us has a strong tendency to attempt to wrestle control from the Spirit and “do” this life on our own. Each of us tends to switch from living the gospel of grace to trusting in a system of works. That’s why Paul brings up this issue with the churches in Galatia.”
So, effort on our part (Christians) to “’do’ this life” is supposedly denying the gospel that originally saved us. This is the most basic element of GS which is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. Obviously, if we can’t do anything to be saved, neither can we participate in sanctification either except for the same role we play in justification, faith and repentance only. However, Paul is not talking about sanctification in Galatians 3:3. He was talking about the Galatians possibly denying the gospel that saved them by faith alone, and doing so by returning to a salvation by works. Apparently, they were being tempted to consummate this decision by being circumcised, and therefore denying the true gospel by proclaiming a false one. This is absolutely clear by the way Paul summarizes his argument:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:2-4).
Paul makes it clear that he was talking about justification (“ You who are trying to be justified by law”) and not sanctification. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. Paul discuses that in the second part of the book, the first part deals with justification. This can be clearly seen by the fact that Paul uses the word “justification” at least ten times in the book while “sanctification” is not used once, even though it is a biblical word in the same way justification is (1 Corinthians 1:30 and 6:11; both are listed together with glorification).
It is no different than someone who is saved by the true gospel , but then leaves an orthodox community of believers for a community that professes a false gospel. Like Paul, we would “stand in doubt” of them. Besides, specifically, Paul is talking about their ultimate goal of being completely transformed (glorification) in 3:3, not sanctification, or their role in the growing process. I believe the Young’s Literal Translation demonstrates this well:
“so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end? “
In the final analysis, CL adorns GS with some challenges that the church needs to hear, but Chan’s solution is a false doctrine. The first hundred passages were subtle enough to keep me in denial while eating red herrings and ignoring straw men used to diss the conventional hearing of God’s word and the proper application to life thereof. Which is very annoying.
paul
John Piper Pleads for Evangelicals Everywhere to be Saved in His 6 Minute Gospel
There is a video widely circulated throughout the internet called “The Gospel in 6 Minutes.” It is excerpted from a sermon by John Piper called “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel.” Apparently, it was delivered in September of 1997, and till this day, the title of the sermon that inspired the video has not even raised a brow. “Strengthened by the gospel”? “Us” would be Christians, “strengthened” would be sanctification, and “gospel” would be the good news that saved us.
That’s what Piper believes. It’s the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. I could post-up just on the title. Regardless of the apostle Paul saying on numerous occasions that the gospel is the foundation of our faith that we build on (Rom. 15:20, 1Cor. 3:10-12, Heb. 6:1), Piper’s title would suggest that’s not the case. The premise that the same gospel message that got us into the kingdom, now sanctifies us, has very serious ramifications in regard to life and godliness. First, if you extrapolate this concept to its logical conclusions (a lost art in today’s church); the gospel is the message God uses to justify us, so, if we are sanctified by the same, an on-going justification would be required for our everyday walk with God. Sure, you could still call it sanctification because it grows as opposed to being a particular point in time, but what drives it is continual justification. Therefore, and think about this, justification is not a onetime event, it is ongoing.
Secondly, justification is monergistic (a complete and total work of God ALONE), so, that would limit sanctification to the same tenets of justification; namely, by faith alone! Are we sanctified by faith alone?
Thirdly, would a rejection of sanctification by faith alone short-circuit justification? Do we, therefore, have to believe in a monergistic sanctification by faith alone to be saved?
Fourthly, if we could not obey to be saved, and we are sanctified the same way we are justified, then who does the obeying? It couldn’t be us, right?
So, let me sum-up in regard to Piper’s title with five interpretive questions: Is sanctification by faith alone? Is sanctification by faith, and our works, a false gospel? Do we have to be saved daily? (as stated by a proponent of GS in a chapel sermon at SEBTS entitled “Playing With the Box” in which he plainly said that we need daily salvation). Who obeys? How does sanctification by faith alone function? Are these not questions that effect the very core of how we function as Christians? The guy preached this message when? His buddies are who? Am I here right now?
Am I seeing too much in a mere title? Well, let’s see. The video excerpt is divided into four parts: Let’s start with the first part: “What is the Gospel?”:
“What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence.
The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy.
That’s the gospel.”
See anything missing? It’s the same thing that’s missing in 99.99% of all gospel presentations by proponents of Gospel Sanctification: repentance. Some time ago, I stumbled upon a video of John MacArthur verbally flogging Rick Warren for the absence of repentance in his (Warren’s) gospel presentation. Hmmm. But remember, Piper and Mac are buddies, and besides, Rick Warren is not a rock star in Reformed circles. But never the less, proponents of GS believe in what they call “deep repentance.” I am not going to stop here to explain it, but suffice to say that it would be very difficult to insert into a gospel presentation because of its complexity. However, I am seeing a movement among some proponents to attempt to implement the concept into the presentation of the gospel. In other words, they pass on mere repentance, but they want to implement deep repentance (sometimes referred to as “intelligent repentance”) instead. Like I said, for now, I’m going to pass on an explanation, but let me at least give you this snippet: it involves repenting of “good works” in order to be saved. And trust me, they don’t want you doing any good works in sanctification either.
As an aside, let me interject another example that is slightly off-subject. Missing from the transcript (from Piper’s website) that I am using for this article, Piper makes this statement: God entered history IN Jesus Christ [slightly paraphrased]. Is that true? Did God enter history “in” Christ? This is a term that I am often hearing among proponents of GS, this whole “God IN Christ” business. When I ask them to clarify; in every case, they quickly say, “I didn’t mean it exactly that way.” Perhaps, but I am not the only one who is concerned that the Trinity is being distorted by an unbalanced view of soteriology in reformed circles (see page 192, “Future Isreal” by Barry E. Horner). More than likely, Piper was referring to the Christocentric hermeneutic that is also a staple tenet of GS doctrine, of which Horner also expresses concern on the same page of his book cited above. As we proceed, you will see a major element of my thesis here; to be specific, this doctrine continues to get stranger and stranger, almost daily, while mainline Evangelical leaders seem glibly oblivious.
Now we move to the second part of the video: “You Can’t Outgrow the Gospel”:
“You never, never, never [actually, he repeats “never” 23 times; think it‘s important to him?] outgrow your need for it. Don’t ever think of the gospel as, “That’s the way you get saved, and then you get strong by leaving it and doing something else.”
No! We are strengthened by God through the gospel every day, till the day we drop.
You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel.”
I think this statement clearly reiterates my opening description of Gospel Sanctification, but what does he mean by “leaving it and doing SOMETHING ELSE.” What is the “something else”? Well, it’s ANYTHING ELSE but the gospel, obviously. And I do mean anything else. For an Idea, read Paul David Tripp’s (the reining prince of Gospel Sanctification) explanation of what the OTHER THINGS are in “How People Change,” pages 23 thru 36. On page 27, he says that the mere act of changing our thinking to biblical thinking is activity that “omits the person and work of Christ as savior.” Stop right there. This concise statement answers two of my interpretive questions: who does the obeying in sanctification? Well, since the relatively passive activity of changing our thinking omits the “work of Christ,” obviously, Christ is doing the work and not us. Comprender? Also, is sanctification by faith and works a false gospel? Yes, because, according to Tripp, it omits “Christ as SAVIOR.” Right? Also, let me mention that Jerry Bridges, another propagator of GS, coined the phrase “you must preach the gospel to yourself everyday” as Piper eludes to it here. This is often Jerry Bridges’ prescription (and most other advocates of GS, especially Dana Stoddard) for people who struggle with assurance of salvation, as opposed to the obvious biblical prescription of examining behavior / thinking and doing something about it. Is this not a major, ground-level issue in our Christian walk? Why doesn’t anybody care? I am truly perplexed!
We now move to the third part of Piper’s six-minute gospel: “How the Gospel Strengthens”:
“Here’s an illustration, and I use it not because it’s any big deal to speak from my life, but because it’s what I walked through and where I most pointedly in the last year experienced the power of the gospel to make me strong. (Many of you are walking through things much heavier than prostate cancer—much heavier.)
Do you remember the verses that I shared with you back in February that were almighty for me? It was that moment right after the doctor says, “I think we need to do a biopsy,” when this stab of fear comes. It didn’t last long, mercifully.
And then came—what? 1Thessalonians 5:9-10. It’s just as pure gospel as you can get.
God has not destined you for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,who died for you so that whether you wake or sleep you will live with him.
Settled. Peace like a river.”
This clearly demonstrates how the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification has changed biblical counseling. Instead of biblical directives, the attempt is going to be to find the right gospel “picture” (see the transcript from Piper’s address to the 2010 T4G conference) that fits the individual’s “need” at that time. I have witnessed this reality first-hand in actual counseling situations. I was also in a Reformed church one morning that propagates GS, and heard an elder of that church testify to how God miraculously turned a marriage around in the first meeting when he “showed them the gospel” from a particular Bible text. The couple were Christians who came to that church for counseling. In the transcript that I am working from, which came from Piper’s website; his comment in the same section as follows, was left out: “That’s why the Bible is so thick, there is a gospel presentation for every need of life” [paraphrased]. The fact that the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification is radically changing what goes on in biblical counseling offices should greatly alarm the Evangelical church. For instance, most Evangelicals who show-up at one of these counseling offices will be dealt with as if they are not even saved; being Evangelicals.
We now move to the fourth and final section of the Piper video: “A Plea to Believe”:
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.
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.
Don’t put it off. “
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.”
I only have one plea for myself: among all of my Southern Baptist brothers (Al Mohler etc.), and Reformed guys like Piper, MacArthur, RC Sproul, Michael Horton (if you move on from the gospel to anything else, you loose both sanctification and justification [that means you ain’t saved], see page 62 of “Christless Christianity”), etc; who have been hanging out together, would somebody figure out who’s saved and who isn’t? I would like to know who I can follow horizontally. Or, are these issues just not important? Or, do I just need to shut-up and be mesmerized by expert pontification?
paul
Sanctification: Where is the Battleground? Heart, or Flesh?
Today, there are two diverse theories in regard to where, and how we fight sin in the sanctification (growing process of our redemption) process. To surmise that this issue is not important would be outwardly rejected by any and all Christians, but yet, Christianity is functioning as if the issue is of no import; no one is saying anything. Strange, for if you would ask what God’s primary will for us is, the answer would be: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification” (1Thess. 4:3).
The two diverse views are as follows: One view says that the battleground is in the “heart,” and the other view says that the battleground is in the “flesh.” I will explain (for lack of a better term) the “heart model” first. But before I do, let me say that I intend to keep my discussion of this very “big picture.” I am also going to mention what I think is the real crux of the issue. Over the years in the field of psychology, the raging debate has been between depth Psychology and behaviorism. One says that a working theory of change must come from understanding the inner man (depth psychology), verses the latter that emphasizes theories of change developed through study of behavior. Simply put: what, verses why.
In all honesty, I believe the present-day debate between the heart model and flesh model is the result of that same debate being dragged into the Christian realm. You can actually drive a historic stake right were this began to happen. Around 1980, Dr. Larry Crabb published a book entitled “Inside Out,” in which he bemoaned his belief that psychologist had an “inside” theory of change but Christianity didn’t. Interestingly, he offered no theory per se, but the goal of the book was to confront the church about only focusing on outward behavior without any regard to change from the “inside out.” In the book, he pretty much stated that Freudian depth psychology was better than nothing, and called on the church to develop a “biblical” model of inside change.
I believe that the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation (CCEF) answered that exact call. Specifically, David Powlison answered the call with the conception of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change”; the theological program at Westminster seminary (CCEF is the counseling wing thereof) that forms the basis of their counseling. In the early 1980’s, it was no accident that Dr. Crabb had a close working relationship with CCEF, but there was a problem: Crabb was too open (truthful) about what he, and many others, thought about the issue at hand; namely, that Christians needed to strongly consider Freudian theories in order to at least jump-start a working theory of inside change, stating that Freud had already done most of the “heavy lifting” in this area. Though he had vast agreement among his peers, they felt that he was spewing out things that most Christians were “not ready for.” Therefore, CCEF threw him under the bus, and continues to run him over with it till this day.
That’s the history, and it’s a short one. Heart theology, as we know it today, had its beginning in the late 70’s to early 80’s. It states that “real change” must start at the “heart level,” since that is the source of sin (Matthew 15:18, 19). Specifically, the mantra of heart theology is “real and lasting” change. This theology has been roughly 26 years in the making, with the finished product being articulated by two former students of David Powlison in the book, “How People Change.”
The theory further states that the key to change at the heart level is the understanding of misguided, or disoriented desires ( James 4:1). The heart is the battleground; desires are either rightly placed or misguided. This is called the “reorienting of the heart,” or reorientation of desires. According to the theory, desires are neither bad or good, they are neutral, but need to be properly placed. From this, you can rightly surmise that heart theologians believe that desire drives everything, and is the key to change. Whenever we sin, a wrongly placed desire is the source. The theory states that we can discover how the desire is misplaced, and reorient it towards Christ instead through, among other things, “deep repentance.” But here, if I attempt to further explain, this attempted short essay will quickly become a book. Really, I believe Paul Tripp does an excellent job of articulating heart theology in “How People Change,” though I believe the theory is a load of psycho-babble crap.
But before I move on to the flesh model, it must be noted that heart theology has a strong theological thrust in regard to the Law (all of God’s word), and its role in the sanctification process. Like the inside – outside debate in regard to distinguishing the heart model from the flesh model, there is also a major difference between the two in regard to the role of the Law in the sanctification process. The Law, and its role in the sanctification process is really the grand crux of the issue in my estimation. All roads to this argument lead back to the role of the Law in sanctification, period. If you really want to understand this issue, follow the money; in this case, the role of the Law in each. In heart theology, the following of the Law is a result of change at the heart level; the Law really plays no role at all, but is a mere “picture” or demonstration of change that has taken place at the heart level. I believe heart theology is a means to an end; specifically, the elimination of our participation in any kind of Law-keeping. An inside model, or theory of change, makes this theoretically possible (to eliminate the Law in the sanctification process). This can’t be emphasized enough in order to prevent confusion: the role of the Law, and location; heart? Or flesh?
This brings me to the flesh model. The flesh model teaches that the battle ground is in the flesh, or as some state it: “our mortal nature.” The flesh model argues that sin’s enslaving power is broken at salvation, but we still struggle with a remnant of sin that resides in our mortality. The battle is between our regenerate heart ( “the law of my mind,” Romans 7:23.“Heart” is most often an idiom for the “mind” in the Law [Scriptures]), and the sin in my “members” (again, Romans 7:23). Also, the flesh model would teach that desires are not neutral and have their own source. Good desires come from our regenerate heart (“the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak”), but evil desires come from the “flesh” (“walk in the Spirit, and you will not fulfill the lust [desire] ‘of the flesh’”). Therefore, the flesh model would also teach that alignment with “ [living by] every word that come from the mouth of God” is “walking” in the Spirit, or according to the Spirit’s will, as expressed in the Scriptures; therefore, the Law is not merely a picture of heart change, but a tool utilized by us in the sanctification process to overcome the flesh. In fact, The apostle Paul seems to equate abstinence with the very definition of sanctification in 1Thess. 4:3-5 ; “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the heathen, who do not know God;”
Seems pretty straight forward. Furthermore, in the very historical conception of heart theology, the admirable (for his transparency) Larry Crabb assumed that depth psychology has helped more people than behavioristic psychology. This is far from the truth and is well documented. Why not, at least, a biblical model of change based on the psychology that has clearly helped more people? In my opinion: because such a concept cannot eliminate the Law from the sanctification process because it focuses on changing behavior. Also, Paul Tripp concedes in “How People Change” that heart theology will have a failure rate; who then is the judge in regard to which model works better? Has someone done a survey?
Lastly, where is all of the discussion in regard to this issue? Do leaders really care about what the true biblical prescription is for “God’s will,” or is it just good conversation while eating lunch with the good ol’ boys at Applebees? Sometimes I wonder. Really, more than sometimes.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment