Camp on This: The Problem with Church
Steve Camp is a Reformed leader and contemporary Christian music icon. In fact, while still blinded by the ways of Protestantism, I was a huge fan of Camp and have probably purchased every CD he ever recorded. He recently posted a comment on his Facebook page that is an almost perfect thumbnail of Protestant heresy and churchianity in general.
Let’s unravel this invitation to go to hell in a handbasket one idea at a time:
As I read FB and Twitter each day, it saddens me to read Christians posting for help with basic needs in their lives. When you see this, it’s proof positive that they are not part of a local church.
Oh really? Home fellowships are in a much better position to help people because of expendable income not going to the Protestant temple tax. As a former Reformed elder, I can tell you what percentage of tithe goes to infrastructure and it ain’t pretty. Not only that, there are always strings attached to any help you get from a Protestant institutional church. One such church offered to pay for my education in fire safety engineering. I said no because I knew it was a control move. In fact, because of what was going on at the time, their motives were so obvious I was embarrassed for them. Home fellowships accomplish EVERYTHING we are called to do at a fraction of the cost.
May I encourage you today to get plugged into a gospel-centered church.
Being interpreted: a church that continually “shows forth” the same gospel that saved us. That’s Protestantism: a return to the same gospel to maintain forgiveness for “present sin.” Calvin taught that sin in the Christian life “removes us…from grace” (“grace,” ie., justification) and reforgiveness of such sin can only be found in formal Protestant church membership.
Be taught God’s Word; worship the Lord Jesus; celebrate the Lord’s supper; fellowship with other believers; pray; serve; give; help meet the needs and bear the burdens of another; develop and use your Spirit given gifts; grow in grace; share your faith; glorify God.
In this list are the Protestant, and don’t miss this, “means of grace.” Stripping this term of its nuance, it is better stated “means of justification.” Notice towards the end of the list we read, “grow[ing] in grace” which is more truthfully rendered “growing in justification.”
Sitting under the teaching of seminary certified philosopher kings, taking the Lord’s Table, being faithful to the church, tithing, etc., “imparts grace” (justification) and are the “means of grace” (justification).
Also notice that instead of worshiping God in spirit and in truth wherever we are because our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit and not some “local church,” “worship” only takes place when we meet corporately in the local expression of the “holy mother Church” as Calvin enjoyed calling it.
paul
Why ACBC Christian Counseling Cannot Help People: Bad Soteriology; Revised and Edited
Note: ACBC; Association of Certified Biblical Counselors
Predominate in Christian circles is the idea that Christ’s death on the cross “covers” the sins that we commit as Christians. This not only sounds logical, but is something I bought into most of my Christian life. One of my favorite Christian songs, formally, states the following:
I know someday I will be free
The weight of sin shall be released
But for now He covers me
In a lesson taught by counseling guru Martha Peace (ACBC advocate and speaker), she states the following:
The Bible teaches us that when God saves someone, he cleanses them from their sin – past sin, present sin, and future sin as the Lord Jesus Christ “bore our sins in His body on the cross” (1 Peter 2:24).
Let’s think about this for a moment. If Christ died for our future sins, does this not necessitate the reapplication of His death to sins committed by Christians? Whether your answer is “yes,” or “no,” that is the assertion and logical conclusion of the soteriology that dominates the American church in our day: Calvinism. Furthermore, it is the soteriology that dominates the present-day Christian counseling culture.
The result is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity since a counseling session between Eve and the serpent. Christians en masse go to “Christian” counseling centers for personal change, but most often, they are being counseled by those who believe most Christians are not ready for the hard truth of the Protestant Reformation gospel: people don’t change; people can’t change; they can only glorify the works of Christ in the gospel while experiencing joy in the midst of circumstances no matter what they are. It’s reversed self-esteem: feeling good about ourselves because we are doing good is sin, but feeling good because we are totally depraved is God’s glory. We see a hint of this in the aforementioned lesson by counseling queen Martha Peace:
This aspect of Sanctification begins at the moment God saves you and “progresses” throughout the rest of your life. It is a life-long process of being transformed into more of Christ’s image.
Notice that we don’t really change, but are “transformed” into an “image” of “Christ.” Do we change personally as new creatures in Christ, or are we merely transformed into an “image”? Though Peace’s lesson is peppered throughout with lingo suggesting a colaboring with God in sanctification, her deception, whether deliberate or witless, is revealed in her citations of the Reformed Mystic Walter Marshall:
True holiness understands that we are by nature totally powerless and unable to live a holy and righteous life that God requires [viz, perfect law-keeping].
Notice that “true holiness” is NOT something we DO, but something that we “understand.” In a myriad of Protestant contemporary writings, sanctification is framed as an “experience” and a “knowing.” The DOING aspect is continually fustigated in clever ways that suggest well-doing in sanctification necessarily equals an attempt to earn our justification (because a requirement of perfect law-keeping remains as the standard for justification; not the new birth and God’s indwelling seed). And this, my friends, is the crux of the soteriological issue. If Christ’s death must be applied to Christian sins, the logical conclusion is that justification is not a finished work and further atonement is needed for future sins. This makes the “means” of holiness in sanctification critical. And what are those means? Peace continues:
True holiness understands that God will not help you live a holy life unless you use the means God has given you to pursue this holy life – salvation and sanctification that will give Him all the glory.
Notice that “salvation” is the “means.” Hence, the same salvation that justified you also sanctifies you. Does that sound familiar? And that’s Calvin as well. I wish not to belabor the point as I cite the Calvin Institutes extensively to establish this fact, especially in It’s Not About Election and The Reformation Myth. If you wish, you can read 3.14.11 in the Calvin Institutes for a primer. It is basically preaching the gospel to yourself daily in order to keep future sins “covered” by Christ’s death on the cross.
So, what makes this sanctification covering biblically illogical? Primarily, a proper understanding of biblical law and gospel. Again, I have written extensively on this and do not wish to belabor the point, but will summarize it.
Christ died for sins committed “under the law.” “Where there is no law, there is no sin.” Unbelievers are “under the law” and “enslaved to sin.” Believers are “under grace” and “enslaved to righteousness.” Along with the contrary slaveries, there is also a freedom to do the contrary. No unbeliever sins perfectly, and no believer obeys perfectly. Even though Christians sin because they are free to succumb to the desires of the flesh, Christ is the “end of the law,” and therefore there is “no condemnation.” Clearly, again, CLEARLY, in Protestantism, the so-called “believer” remains under the law and its condemnation.
Furthermore, the old self that was under the law was crucified with Christ and no longer lives; so, see Romans 7, the new us is no longer married to the old us that was under the law. But unbelievers are still under the law, and will be judged by that written law and the law of conscience—that will not go well.
Believers are righteous even as they are righteous—they have God’s seed abiding within them (see 1John 3). Regardless of being clothed in humanity, believers are truly righteous beings who are able to please God by their obedience (see Romans 8). Sin resides in our mortality and weakness, but no longer enslaves us. However, all in all, our new direction is indicative of our righteousness while we are NOT judged by a perfect keeping of the law for we are under grace. “Under grace” is NOT being under the “righteous demands of the law” as the often heard buzz-phrase goes among Protestant pastors and elders.
Therefore, with proper biblical guidance, we are able to change in order to please God. We do not merely contemplate God’s grace and watch for a “transformation” of an “image.” Rather than depending on a finished work for a glory manifestation, we “move on to maturity” by learning how to “control our own bodies in holiness.” Contrary to Peace’s Reformed idea that the finished work of justification must continue to cover future sins by “revisiting the gospel afresh” (Michael Horton via Calvin), we apply God’s truth to our lives, and when we see the results, it makes us more and more sure of our “calling and election” because it indicates that we are no longer enslaved to sin and its desires. On the flip side, disobedience can cause a believer to doubt his/her salvation because they continually violate their consciences. Also remember that unbelievers are not concerned with assurance issues.
In contrast, Peace asserts in the same lesson, as Jerry Bridges and many others, that assurance comes from the belief that we can do nothing to please God in sanctification:
True holiness is produced in someone who is assured that they are forgiven and reconciled to God.
In other words, effort in sanctification supposedly shows that we are not resting in the continued salvific work of Christ. This is Calvin’s Sabbath rest salvation that I discuss in detail in chapter 4 of It’s Not About Election. In chapter 5, I discuss why this doctrine robs Christians of assurance. Biblical assurance comes from knowing that justification is a finished work that ended sin and its condemnation, not the idea that our sin is merely covered via “returning to the gospel afresh.” The ending of sin is good news, not a perpetual cover-up. In fact, many like Kevin DeYoung testify to the difficulty of assurance because, supposedly, the closer we get to God, the more we see how far we are from His holiness resulting in the need to be proclaimed saved by elders.
“But Paul, what about sins that we commit in our Christian life?” Well, we hate it, and therefore long to be saved from these mortal bodies of death, but we are not enslaved by it, nor can it condemn us. Assurance comes from the fact that justification and sanctification are totally separate; one is a finished work that ended condemnation, and the other increases our joy by an increased ability to please God by what we DO in kingdom living. We love God—He doesn’t love Himself by transforming us into an image of Himself IF we continue to live by faith alone in sanctification. James condemned that doctrine in his letter to the 12 tribes of the dispersion. Neither should we feel good about our supposed total depravity. Total depravity is not the source of joyful assurance because it increases our gratitude for our original salvation through a deeper and deeper understanding of how evil we are.
This, and many other reasons is why contemporary biblical counseling will not help Christians, but will rather destroy them.
paul
The SGM Spiritual Abuse Holocaust: Wade Burleson is Not a Solution; He’s the Problem
“Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are?”
I really don’t have time to write this as I am preparing for a conference, but on the other hand I am both fuming and fed-up. “Trigger alert”? Oh this is way past that, hide the children.
Regarding the recent revision of the Catholicesque class action lawsuit against the New Calvinist organization Sovereign Grace Ministries, “holocaust” is not terminology that is out of line. If you have read the revision, I am sure you agree that the number of fatalities pale, but the shear degree of evil, even if half of the accusations are true, is comparable.
During WWII, a lone German pastor left the protection and comfort of his American mission and returned to the belly of the beast to cry out against the Holocaust. For his outcry, he was hung naked with piano wire. The New Calvinist beasts among us criticize Bonheoffer for being “unorthodox” and plotting against the German government while extolling Christopher Love as a godly martyr. Love was a Puritan who meddled in petty European power struggles between kings and was executed for it. Genocide was hardly the issue.
Like the vast majority of clergy during WWII, the American clergy rants ambiguously against the sin, but stands silent against the sinner. The apostle Paul rebuked Peter publically for eating sandwiches in hypocrisy, and commanded that elders who sin should be rebuked publically so that others would fear. Such rebukes in the midst of sin that the heathen will not even tolerate are nowhere to be found on the contemporary evangelical landscape. American pastors are the epitome of coldhearted indifference, hypocrisy, and lust for acceptance in the good ole boys club. They dream of invitations to the big conferences and the approval of those who best teach how to drink orthodox Kool-Aid intravenously. There are no words for the degree of contempt and disgust that I have for these pathetic cowards. Where is the outrage?
Though what I experienced pales in comparison to the SGM victims, I can speak to why victims wait so long to come forward. When things that don’t make any sense happen in an environment of trust, confusion waits for clarity before action. The confused rarely act, and the brainwashed rarely react at all. My responses are now in full gear—seven years later. Seven years. And in relative terms, I “only” lost all of my “friends,” my name, and half of my family.
But back to the hypocrites. Steve Camp, who once wrote a song about feeling the pain of others, even to the degree of tasting the salt in their tears, tweeted to me that the SGM scandal was a “local church” issue and shouldn’t be public. This also apes SGM’s defense; it’s not the world’s business. That was followed up by, “Do you not like him [CJ Mahaney]? I do.” Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are? And one of the most popular Christian musicians of our time boasts that he likes a friend of pedophiles? “But Paul, there is no verdict yet.” Yes there is. If Steve Camp likes CJ, he obviously believes CJ and has totally disregarded the claims of eleven people against an elder when only two are needed. Otherwise, he would wait to see if he still likes CJ. But he does, like all the other members of the New Calvinist coven.
And the likes of Pastor Wade Burleson only make the situation worse with his half- pregnant overtures. He becomes a cushion between the beasts and the ravaged. Burleson is a New Calvinist, that is bad enough, but he is passing on the opportunity to use his influence to call out these people by name—probably because he is a New Calvinist that sympathizes with those suing New Calvinists.
From time to time, groups of notable evangelicals come together and sign declarations. It’s always big news. I am still waiting for a declaration of zero tolerance for child-rapists in the evangelical church. It could be stopped. Yes indeed, no doubt. How? A declaration by notable pastors declaring that they will not tolerate it. A group of notable pastors walking down an isle on a Sunday morning and demanding that a man get out of the pulpit until certain situations are resolved. Why not? That’s what the apostle Paul did! And we are talking about child rape, not who we avoid at the diner. THIS IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE.
Pastors are called on by God to strike fear in the hearts of sinning elders. Instead, they cover for them. One notable Southern Baptist pastor once said to a victim demanding justice, “What do you want me to do, shoot him?” Well, in my book, that would be a start, and certainly better than what is presently taking place. But all the victim really wanted is for this pastor to use his influence to protect others from her same fate. Is that too much to ask from these hirelings? Yes. Absolutely.
Wade Burleson has significant influence in evangelical circles, that’s why the Wartburg Watch slobbers all over him continually. He is a hero among spiritual abuse bloggers because he, get this, shows compassion for the spiritually abused. That’s where we are as well: any notable pastor that even shows compassion towards the spiritually abused is a hero! But we don’t need another polished evangelical celebrity in our day full of soothing words; these are times that call for the likes of Dietrich Bonheoffer.
Burleson needs to use his bogus influence to make a difference. He needs to start calling people out by name and calling other pastors to join him. He needs to stop playing both sides of the fence with compassion on one side and silence on the other. It’s not enough to call out the crime; the criminals need to be called out as well. We know he can name names in his own church when the offender is an average Joe, but will he call out the big-name pedophile collaborators? The victims of SGM are suing people and naming names, not just their crimes. As victims, they are courageously facing their abusers in court because pastors wouldn’t step up. Though Burleson is a “hero” for saying they can sue, they wouldn’t need to if he and others would fully exploit their God-given positions for the sake of victims.
If Burleson is going to play the role, he needs to leave it all on the court and stop separating the sin from the sinner. Victims don’t have that convenience if they get justice. And justice is a big part of healing. Stop playing Dietrich Bonheoffer and be Dietrich Bonheoffer who was a real advocate for victims. Victims were the real cause, not the preservation of social status.
paul
Heroes Are Hard to Find in the Days of Noah
I’m past it now. Most of my spiritual heroes have fallen. I am now ready for the rest of them to fall if they do— the few that are left, which include the dead. It’s a good test for one’s faith—do we follow men or Christ?
They cross my path now and then—those who are going through what I have gone through. Some are in the denial stage—others in the disillusionment stage that will draw them closer to Christ and give them more resolve for the truth. They will be ok; after all, every Christian is born again with a little bit of Noah in them.
Have you ever thought about what it must have been like for Noah? He was one of the few Christians left on the face of the Earth, and beyond him, only family members. Noah was a follower of God and didn’t follow the crowd, and in this case, the “crowd” was the whole world. And remember, we may assume that religion and false teachings were very much a part of that landscape as well. Peter also states that Noah was a “herald of righteousness.”
In our day when evangelism is at an all-time low and compromise at an all-time high, more Noahs are needed, especially since Christ said, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” Of course, in our day, many cannot draw encouragement or solace from the life of Noah because after all—whether or not those events are true is neither here nor there—what those narratives say about the gospel is the point. It’s not about Noah, it’s about Jesus.
Neo-evangelicalism’s First Major Trophy: Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse
I have been writing lately about Neo-evangelicalism. Its connection with Neo-orthodoxy and New Calvinism will be discussed in volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism. Basically. NE rejected the idea of separation to maintain doctrinal purity. At some point, Dr. Barnhouse succumbed to how uncomfortable things become when you stand for the truth. His capitulation triggered a tsunami of disillusionment and denial. As recorded by Christian Author MJ Stanford:
CRUSHING COMPROMISE: In November of 1954 Dr. Barnhouse completely capitulated to his denomination, and especially to his Philadelphia Presbytery. Christians throughout the world were astounded by this seemingly sudden surrender. The Philadelphia Bulletin for November 12, 1954, reported:
“A 22-year-old breach between the Presbytery of Philadelphia and Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse has been healed by the latter’s recent appearance before the Presbytery expressing the desire for closer fellowship with the alienated group. Presbytery immediately responded in an open-armed gesture of welcome…. Dr. Barnhouse said, “I have come to realize that some of my personal relationships have suffered because of these past differences, and I now recognize that this has been a mistake. For my part I want to work in much closer fellowship with you in the Presbytery.”
Can you imagine those same words coming from the mouth of Noah?:
I have come to realize that some of my personal relationships have suffered because of these past differences, and I now recognize that this has been a mistake. For my part I want to work in much closer fellowship with you in the Presbytery.
Thereafter, Barnhouse’s compromise is credited with greasing the wheels of the Progressive Adventist movement and Neo-Pentecostalism/Oneness Theology:
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTED: It was in 1956 that Dr. Barnhouse’s ecumenical love-stance included cultic compromise. At that time he and Dr. Walter Martin entered into “sweet fellowship” with masters of deceit–the leaders of Seventh-Day Adventism! As a result there appeared an astounding series of articles in Eternity, beginning in September, 1956.
While not agreeing with some of their “screwy doctrines,” of as he put it, he insisted that “they are as orthodox on the great fundamentals of the Person and work of Christ as anybody in the world could be.” (I for one, then, am out of this world!) In these fateful and disquieting disquisitions Dr. Barnhouse went all out in an effort to convince Christians that Seventh-Day Adventists were safe and sound evangelicals and should be accepted into full fellowship.
This irresponsible sponsorship brought forth a storm of protest all over the world, with thousands writing in repudiation of the sheep-stealing and doctrinally deviant cult. Dr. Barnhouse was untouched. As a friend of his used to say of him, “He was dogmatic about any subject even when he was totally wrong.”
SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM ACCEPTS : The wily Adventists were quick to take advantage of Dr. Barnhouse and his pandoric patronage. As early as October 2, 1956, the Adventist monthly, Signs of the Times, came forth with an editorial entitled, “Adventists Vindicated.” “Vindicated” before the vindication was even published!
Their statement contained this telling sentence: “As to the effect of Dr. Barnhouse’s courageous reappraisal of Seventh-Day Adventism, we are convinced that it will not only create a sensation in evangelical circles, but it will lead thousands to restudy the ‘message’ which Seventh-Day Adventists feel called to give to the world in these last days.”
QUESTIONABLE “QUESTIONS ON DOCTRINE” : Just a few months later, early in 1957, the SDA denomination published an official 700-page volume entitled, Seventh-Day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. The primary purpose of this tome was to convince evangelicals, hand-in-hand with Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Walter Martin, that theirs was an evangelical body.
PREPOSTEROUS PENTECOSTAL PERCENTAGE: 1957 also witnessed Dr. Barnhouse and Dr. Martin entering into “close fellowship” with the Pentecostalists. Eternity for April, 1958, reported the visit with the leaders of the Assemblies of God at their headquarters in Springfield, Missouri, stating, “We found total disagreement of two percent of our doctrines, and absolute agreement of 95 to 98 percent.” Again, believers were strongly exhorted to enter into fellowship with this anti-security, tongues and healing group.
It was at this time that the Pentecostal plague was beginning to break loose and infect the larger denominations. The Barnhouse-Martin open door policy substantially contributed to the present-day charismatic errors that are rending the Body of Christ.
Here the promoters of oneness gave their blessing to the most divisive and dangerous element of all! An ex-Pentecostal leader stated, “The denominations that are accepting and tolerating the Neo-pentecostals also exhibit tendencies toward Neo-orthodoxy, Neo-evangelicalism, and Neo-morality.” To this day, Dr. Walter Martin frequents the Pentecostal platforms of the country.
Hero Gone Bad: John MacArthur Jr.
The present-day compromise of John MacArthur Jr. is reminiscent of Barnhouse. MacArthur has no shame in regard to who he gives credibility to. MacArthur was corrupted via his friendships and associations with the likes of John Piper and Michael Horton. Though elders are to be beyond reproach, for seven straight years including this one, he will appear on stage with serial sheep abuser and hypocrite extraordinaire, CJ Mahaney. MacArthur came completely out of the closet when he wrote the Forward to Uneclipsing the Son, written by New Calvinist Rick Holland. In the Forward, JM plainly rejects the significant role of the Father and the Holy Spirit in salvation and sanctification.
Biblical Counselors Gone Bad: The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors
Peaking in the early 90’s, this organization could not have found warehouses big enough to archive the stories of changed lives for God’s glory. Through training in this program, I myself was able to prevent a suicide with the Lord’s help. In 1992, a NANC training center in Ohio saw twelve solid conversions to Jesus Christ in one year. Unfortunately, NANC allowed the infiltration of other “biblical” counseling organizations via teaching and board members. Today, NANC is responsible for leading thousands down a path of destruction. Former stalwart members such as Lou Priolo and Martha Peace now drink the kool-aid of New Calvinism and serve it to thousands daily by books and speaking engagements.
Disillusioned Followers of the Always Bad John Piper
A reason for Piper heroship is extremely wanting. He was initially educated in humanistic Philosophy before attending the epicenter of Neo-evangelicalism: Fuller Seminary. Fuller Seminary frequently hosted the likes of Karl Barth during the time that Piper was a student there. The same year that he graduated from Fuller, he went to Germany to study under Neo-orthodox theologians. Though Piper’s pedigree is suspect to say the least, his popularity is unprecedented. Many of Piper’s followers are clearly in the denial stage; chief among them, the former Christian recording artist Steve Camp. Camp has written several articles on his blog that vent his perplexity regarding Piper’s behavior—peppered with statements like, has anybody seen the real John Piper lately? Steven, Steven, Steven, face it—John Piper was never real. Camp also wrote a lengthy article concerning a bizarre concoction by Piper and CJ Mahaney known as “The Scream of the Damned.” Apparently, it taught that Christ was condemned to hell as part of the atonement. One wonders if Piper and Mahaney themselves are amazed at what they get away with.
Christians need to remember that a love for the truth is a particular part of the salvation gift ( 2Thess. 2:10). When it gets right down to it, every Christian has the stuff Noah had—even if they are the last ones on earth to stand for the truth. It’s there, you will find it if you want to. Others have followed in the way of Noah. During the time of Constantine, a notable teacher stood against the onslaught of Arianism and was forced into exile. His name was Athanasius. Someone once said to Athanasius that the whole world was against his uncompromising stand; to which he replied, “Then I am against the world.” This is where the saying Athanasius contra mundum (“Athanasius against the world”) comes from.
He was like Noah. When it gets right down to it, we all are. Compromise only delivers a truce tormented by a nagging conscience. It’s not worth it.
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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment