Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
The Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Information Network
Again, thanks to those sending information to this ministry. The stories are the same; faithful Bereans searching the Scriptures themselves, sometimes for two years or longer, because their leaders would not be forthcoming concerning what they were spoon-feeding their congregations. This is the arrogance of GS leaders, withholding the whole truth until their (supposedly) spiritually inferior congregants are “ready” for the whole “truth.” Hence, they know themselves that the doctrine would be rejected out-of-hand if not gradually assimilated into what they are feeding parishioners. This is an across-the-board GS mode of operation that creates heavy-handed leadership and a cult-like atmosphere in many churches.
Some are sending information about the attitude of our spiritual kin concerning law and gospel. I am deeply indebted to one individual for introducing me to the writings of Walter Chantry. The book that was recommended to me should be arriving tomorrow. Apparently, Chantry’s implications in the book concerning NCT didn’t sit well with Reisinger and Zen—a very good sign. And Trust me (after reading Chantry’s “Today’s Gospel”), Chantry’s view of law and gospel doesn’t agree with Michael Horton either.
Also, a huge problem for the GS crowd is the novelty factor. Evangelicals have a hard time swallowing the idea that the church has been in the dark until 1980. Their (GS profs) disingenuous response is to claim Walter Marshall, Luther, and John Owen held to their views on sanctification. One reader is going to share some research possibly indicating that Walter Marshall’s writings were altered in a book about his supposed views on sanctification. Readers are also referring me to several people who were at ground level of the Sonship movement and were apposed to it, and I am hoping to personally interview those people in preparation for my chapter book on GS, which will articulate the history of the movement.
Almost everyone is saying, “You probably already know this but….” No! I haven’t been privy to any of it, keep it coming! The information is also great blog material, but I will not mention any sources by name unless it is a source that is already public. But, because I am a layman, and scratching out time for research is difficult, the information is invaluable. I am hoping for Feedback on the limited edition essay book to aid in the writing of the chapter book as well.
As you can see, the information coming in contends against bits and pieces of the movement. The goal of this network is to reveal the connection between all of these bits and pieces. You can also see the perplexity of some that certain respected individuals are doing this, that, or the other (inviting certain individuals to their conferences etc.). I find the perplexity concerning John Piper, especially Steve Camps piece, adorable. However, though there are many complicated pieces, the primary foundation is Sonship Theology which was not widely accepted by evangelicals until proponents changed to the “gospel” nomenclature. Therefore, the goal is also to identify the doctrine with the identity from which it came as a way to remove its cover.
In all, lest we forget: this is all driven by the conviction that doctrine determines what a life looks like, and unbiblical prescriptions for living the kingdom life must be contended against. That is love for others.
paul
How and Why “Gospel-Driven” Sanctification / Sonship Theology Creates Cult-Like Churches
In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.
My firsthand experience with a “gospel centered” church is applicable here because this same church and its leaders are well respected in Reformed circles, and especially among those who propagate gospel-driven sanctification. Paul David Tripp speaks at this particular church often, and others such as Stewart Scott and Robert Jones have recently participated in major events there as well. Therefore, it is fair to conclude that this particular church’s activities are not considered to be abnormal among “gospel centered” persuasions.
The church I am using as an example regarding the “what,” (I will write about the “how” last) would classify themselves as being a New Covenant Theology church. They consider “Theology of the Heart, redemptive-historical hermeneutics, gospel-driven sanctification, and Christian hedonism to be tenets of NCT. What does this church and many others look like as a result of this theology?
Foremost, the leadership is very controlling. Members must have permission from the elders to vacate membership status. Those who attempt to leave membership for “unbiblical reasons” can be placed under church discipline. I have personally counseled former parishioners of said church on how to “get out of there” with minimal stress, and how to leave without being placed under church discipline. At this particular church, leaving for doctrinal reasons is considered “unbiblical.” In one particular case where the elders deemed the reason for departure “biblical,” the parishioner informed me that the chairman of the elders told him, “We would never prevent you from leaving for that reason.”
These elders are also very controlling in the area of thought. In a sermon preached by one of its elders entitled, “How to Listen to a Sermon” the following idea was introduced: Christians are not able to grow spiritually from personal study, but must only learn from sitting under preaching; specifically, preaching by the elders at that church. Here is an excerpt from the manuscript:
“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. [Particularly on the issue of radios]. 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.”
Of course, the first thing that would come to mind for any thinking Christian is the biblical account of the Bereans who studied the Scriptures on their own to determine the truthfulness of Paul’s teaching. But according to this elder, the account in Acts 17 wasn’t referring to that, but rather was illustrating the proper way to listen to a sermon:
“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.”
In other words, personal study alone cannot produce belief; preaching from an elder must be part of the “cycle” that produces belief (notice the emphasis on “belief” rather than increased knowledge per the progressive justification element of gospel sanctification). In fact, he said that personal study only “flavors” the 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”
So, personal Bible study isn’t the food, it’s just the flavoring. And, personal Bible study is for “flavoring,” not discernment. Buyer beware.
In another category under mind control, separate small groups that meet during the week under the supervision of individual elders in homes of members are instructed not to associate, or speak with members who have left for doctrinal reasons. Also, the primary purpose of the meetings is to get feedback from the parishioners on what was taught the previous Sunday, and fielding objections or concerns. In other “gospel centered” churches, these mid-week meetings are closed to outsiders, or non-members. These meetings have also been known to produce weird occurrences like the time an elder unexpectedly produced all of his financial records in plain view of the group for their inspection. A parishioner confided in me that he found the incident to be surreal, and more information than he cared to know about.
Unknown, for the most part, is the gospel-driven use of what’s called redemptive church discipline. It is a staple of these churches, and it is a very broad use of church discipline. Reformed Christians who join “gospel centered” churches assume it is a reference to traditional forms of church discipline. Parishioners can be placed in this process for any sin, and without any prior notice or inclination. It is not the normal process of inquisitive steps to determine a Christian’s willingness to repent, but more like a counseling process in which elders judge when the parishioner has actually repented. Verbal repentance on the part of the subject is not accepted. Members are not free to leave membership while in this process without being excommunicated for supposedly attempting to vacate membership while in the midst of an unresolved sin issue. Those who dispute gospel sanctification are often placed into the process to convert them to a “redemptive” view of sanctification. They either convert, or they’re excommunicated. Accounts of “gospel centered” churches using this process to control parishioners is vast.
However, the major complaint coming out of these churches is the ignoring of clear biblical mandates by their elders. Parishioners are often perplexed by this. But this is because the elders of these churches believe the Bible is solely for the purpose of showing forth redemptive principles (ie., the gospel) and not instruction. Per New Covenant Theology, they are only obligated to a “higher law of love” which replaced biblical imperatives. The idea is the following: all actions done with the motive of love are righteous. As Francis Chan wrote, “….because when we are loving, we can’t sin”(Crazy Love p.102). As in one case when an elder was caught counseling someone’s wife without the husband’s knowledge – his defense was that he did so “in love.” Therefore, just about anything goes in gospel-driven churches, and well published accounts include excommunicating hundreds of members at one time for non-attendance, which is a questionable act when Scripture is considered to say the least.
How does this happen? First, it begins with a niche doctrine. Propagators often admit that gospel sanctification is a “radical departure” from orthodox doctrine. Those are the words of the propagators, not mine. Any movement that begins with a niche doctrine is in danger of becoming a cult, that’s Cult Apologetics 101. My research has made the following evident: the doctrine was conceived by a man named Jack Miller in, or about 1980.
Secondly, the niche doctrine draws leaders who are more interested in being unique than being in the truth. Take note of what one of the elders of the aforementioned church said while introducing a Sunday school class teaching Christian hedonism: “This doctrine is what makes us unique.” Whenever the goal is to be unique, trouble is not far behind.
Thirdly, niche doctrines and a striving to be different leads to subjectivity and confusion because the leaders are constantly striving to make the doctrine fit with reality and orthodoxy. This results in the kind of events mentioned above.
Fourthly, these elements mixed with the fact that most Reformed churches are autonomous in their polity is an extremely dangerous combination. Basically, the leadership is not accountable and the congregation is on their own.
Niche doctrines, the control of members in thought and action, the ignoring of clear biblical mandates, misuse of unbiblical church discipline in order to control parishioners through fear, manipulation, and intimidation; this is how the “gospel centered” leaders of our day adorn their vile doctrine. Therefore, perhaps they should be named with the cult leaders of ages past accordingly.
Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 2
In part 1, I mention that I will dissect Michael Horton’s written denial that he is an antinomian by reiterating his antinomian doctrine in the same denial. My comments are in [brackets]:
“What’s striking is that Paul answers antinomianism not with the law but with more gospel!
[No, what’s striking is Paul is refuting those who teach that less law leads to more gospel. In fact, Paul does answer with the law: ‘Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?’ John said the biblical definition of sin is the transgression of the law (1Jn 3:4). Paul’s point following is: to sin in order to get more grace is to contradict the very purpose of grace, which is to defeat sin itself (1Jn 3:8). Secondly, why would grace break the power of sin if more sin brought forth more grace (Rom 6:6)? That’s Paul’s point – not what Horton says. Paul doesn’t preach grace to the exclusion of the law in sanctification. In fact, one definition of biblical sanctification is abstinence from what the law instructs us to avoid (1Thess 4:3). You are saying that Paul emphasized grace to the exclusion of the law in regard to the antinomian question (‘not with the law’ / ‘but with more gospel’). That’s not true.]
In other words, antinomians are not people who believe the gospel too much, but too little!
[That’s not true either. Paul said they are trying to get more grace with less law, the opposite of what you are saying.]
They restrict the power of the gospel to the problem of sin’s guilt, while Paul tells us that the gospel is the power for sanctification as well as justification.
[No they don’t – they don’t see guilt as a problem at all because we are supposedly ‘dead to the law,’ ie., free from its obligations in sanctification. Why would guilt even be an issue?]
The danger of legalism becomes apparent not only when we confuse law and gospel in justification, but when we imagine that even our new obedience can be powered by the law rather than the gospel.
[Nobody ever said the law ‘powers’ our obedience. It is the standard that we align our life with while trusting God for the necessary strength to do so. You use the term ‘new obedience’ which is a gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology term that refers to Christ obeying for us. If we are not obligated to uphold the law, but rather believe that Christ obeys it for us, that’s still antinomianism because it excludes the law from our realm of responsibility.]
The law does what only the law can do: reveal God’s moral will. In doing so, it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ and it also directs us in grateful obedience.
[This is the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology concept of law negative, which means the law serves the exact same purpose in sanctification that it does in justification – to show a supposed inability to keep the law and reveal our ‘helplessness’ (in keeping the law). However, the Bible doesn’t say that the application of the law to our lives leads to ‘helplessness,’ but rather happiness and blessing (James 1:25), and strength (Matt 7:24,25). Also, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology doctrine also says that any effort on our part to obey the law is an attempt to establish our own righteousness apart from Christ, which can be seen in ‘….it strips us of our righteousness and makes us aware of our helplessness apart from Christ.’ Furthermore, the gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology element of Christian hedonism can also be seen in Horton’s statement which teaches that true obedience is always accompanied by a willing, joyful spirit. That’s how we supposedly know that it is Christ obeying through us: ‘….it also directs us in grateful obedience.’]
No one who says this can be considered an antinomian. [Gag! Why not? What Horton is saying is antinomian!]
However, it’s not a matter of finding the right “balance” between law and gospel, but of recognizing that each does different work.
[The law has different roles in justification and sanctification. But gospel sanctification / Sonship Theology teaches that the role of the law is the same in both.]
We need imperatives—and Paul gives them. But he only does this later in the argument, after he has grounded sanctification in the gospel.”
[The indicative does not always precede the imperative in Scripture. And in some cases, the imperative is based on something Christ has not even done yet, which doesn’t include the finished work of the gospel ( Heb 10:24,25 and 2Peter 3:11,12).]
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments