Dear Sherwood Baptist Church, Let Me Clarify
Are you confused by the White Horse Inn’s criticism (White Horse Inn) of your new movie, “Courageous”? Let me clarify. The criticism is driven by a doctrine that is antithetical to traditional evangelicalism. It is a doctrine that is perhaps the most covert in church history, using all of the same terminology and lingo, but with a totally different approach to issues of justification and sanctification.
The movement, known as, “New Calvinism” has been “roper doping” evangelicals for the past twenty-one years. It was primarily developed by two men in the early seventies—Jon Zens and Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The doctrine they developed together split into two different directions under two different names: New Covenant Theology and The Centrality of the Objective Gospel.
Jon Zens tried to promote the doctrine in Reformed Baptist circles and met stiff resistance from Walter Chantry and others. Chantry rightly identified the doctrine as antinomianism. Antinomians don’t like the idea that Christians can play the robust role in sanctification as presented in your movie—especially as instructed from the word of God specifically. Chantry also wrote a book contending against the doctrine entitled “God’s Righteous Kingdom.” Chantry’s son wrote a defense of his father’s book against New Calvinist DA Carson who criticized the book because Jon Zens is New Calvinist family, though they don’t like to claim him because of his SDA connections. Of course, Carson was not honest about why he was really criticizing the book—just like White Horse Inn is not being honest about the criticism of your movie.
Robert Brinsmead propagated the doctrine in Presbyterian circles where it became known as Sonship Theology. But Presbyterians, most notably Jay E. Adams, also waged a spirited war against it. In fact, Adams also wrote a book to contend against the doctrine as well. The doctrine is banned in many Presbyterian churches. Its propagators therefore changed the label to “Gospel Transformation.” Gospel-driven this, gospel-centered that, gospel-you fill in the blank.
For ten years, few people realized the doctrine was the same as Sonship and NCT. In 2004, some people caught on and dubbed the movement “Gospel Sanctification.” Adams recently added a Gospel Sanctification archive to his blog and has said the doctrine is dangerous and must be stopped. Apparently, Reformed Baptists have not yet put two and two together on that one; probably because Jon Zens is no longer at the forefront of the movement and that’s who they identify as the center of the controversy.
In 2008, the movement was dubbed “New Calvinism.” Personally, I was never able to understand New Calvinism until I studied The Centrality of the Objective Gospel’s theological journal, Present Truth, later renamed, Verdict. Therefore, let me introduce you to the doctrine via Present Truth volume 16, article 13:
The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification. For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification.
And:
Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism or Pharisaism.
And:
Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins.
And:
Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.
Sanctification is justification in action? But Justification is by faith alone. Historically and biblically, evangelicals have embraced justification by faith alone but reject sanctification by faith alone. The characters in your movie are hardly faith alone / let go and let God kind of guys. Hence, the WHI criticism. The characters in your movie, like most evangelicals, would reject a gospel contemplationism that seeks a deeper understanding of justification/gospel first and then waits to see if God is going to do anything accordingly. Consider therefore this comment by WHI fellow Michael Horton:
Nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image.
Yes, the characters in your movie wouldn’t be much for the idea of being resaved everyday—would they?
Neither do I think the Christian types portrayed in your movie would agree with the idea that Christians are totally depraved and that all of our works are as filthy rags before the Lord. Zens and Brinsmead on that:
The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration.
Brinsmead had a colleague who helped him with a project that promoted said doctrine named Geoffrey Paxton. He wrote an article in Present Truth denying that the new birth was part of the gospel. It was entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The thesis of the article was that the new birth is purely the work of justification, and not part of the gospel. They believe that “infusion of grace” (ie., the new birth) implies a capability to work with God in sanctification which is supposedly a false gospel. That’s also because their doctrine synthesizes justification and sanctification. Hence, the complaint that your movie didn’t have enough gospel. But of course, the movie isn’t primarily about the gospel, but rather the living out of the Christian faith—which they teach is done by continually returning to salvation. So, compare these two quotes, one from Geoffrey Paxton, and one from WHI’s Michael Horton:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
Your movie is important and I enjoyed it very much. The Bible says that spiritual cowards will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yes, a pity that this kind of teaching has to be in movie form because it’s not being taught in the local church. For that reason, I stopped short of the ovation that took place in the theater where Susan and I watched it. Nevertheless, keep-up the good work. Now reread the WHI critique and see if anything rings a bell.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 4
I don’t think the working definition(s) of justification, sanctification or regeneration is what is being contended. I think we’re pretty much on the same page with those definitions. It is the cause or motivation behind our sanctification I believe we are discussing.
Any/all acts of obedience, we would say, are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit. This begins at regeneration and continues until the believer dies or meets the Lord in the clouds J. Historically, we believe the Holy Spirit uses the means of Scripture, via. the foundational reference of our justification, as motivational towards our sanctification. Hence, the sacraments of baptism and communion are symbolic “means of grace” whereby the emphasis is upon the life, death and resurrection of Christ and how those events practically effect our lives (i.e., sanctify us). Or in other words, we would say “the gospel of the sacraments is given and designed to keep our focus Christward alone, that he would receive any/all glory, that our motivation would stem outside of ourselves and upon him, to be conformed into the holy son of God we’ve been called to be.” The sacraments, we believe, are given as directly connecting sanctification from our justification, something we see as historic as the Scriptures themselves.
Q; I’m not so sure about that clarification. Let’s take a pure, unadulterated NC view of justification and see where you agree or disagree:
“The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification; For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification.
And…Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins.
And…Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.”
Second part of this question: I’m not so sure evangelicals would say that, “Any/all acts of obedience, we would say, are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit.” Please distinguish this as opposed to “sanctification by faith alone” which evangelicals would reject out of hand.
Third part of this question: How should we reconcile this with believers being described as “co-laborers with God” and the Holy Spirit being our “Helper.”
Fourth: What’s you evaluation of the following statement:
“Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, ‘God helps those who help themselves,’ had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result”
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 3
Most NC are synergistic in their understanding of sanctification, therefore, most believe we participate in it. The doctrinal contention is, what “motivates” our post-conversion walk of faith? A wrong understanding of justification will contaminate the motive for sanctification. Hence, good works are the necessary fruits of justification, never causal to it. The Galatians were falling back into an understanding of lawful compliance (faith in Christ…plus works), as the grounds for their salvation, and for this reason, they had redefined justification and distorted the proper foundational understanding of sanctification.
Probably the biggest reason why NC’s view sanctification as being Gospel centered and “finished work of Christ motivated” primarily is because it takes a genuine gospel conversion, true work of the HS, for one to experience saving faith and conversion. All other professors of the faith, they are not motivated by the finished work of Christ. Their default motive in all of their life continues to be motivated by any/everything other than Christ and his glory. Some of these individuals, as Saul of Tarsus, retain an outward moral self-discipline that is quite impressive to the natural man, but filth and rags as when measured up to the motive that stems from a gospel centered, Christ centered motive. For this reason, it is a humanistic “walk of faith” to believe one can grow in their faith, apart from the gospel centrality of Christ, his glory and his grace.
Q: Is this not where New Calvinism and traditional evangelicalism part ways? In theological terms, evangelicals do not see sanctification as intrinsically related to justification. They see justification as a onetime legal declaration that guarantees glorification, and makes sanctification possible, but does not feed it. Along with justification comes the new birth, which enables the believer to participate in kingdom life and separation from this fallen world. But works in sanctification do not relate back to justification at all. Justification does not progress, only the spiritual life in sanctification progresses. New Calvinism teaches that sanctification must look back to justification and is given continual life by justification. Evangelicals reject that. They see justification as a guarantee and foundation to be built on. Evangelicals believe that works in sanctification have no relationship at all to justification because nothing done in sanctification can do anything to sustain it. Again, it’s a completely done deal, and everything it has to offer has been credited to our account in full.
….in other words, justification isn’t on an installment plan, it’s been paid in full. It’s not progressing forward and building toward glorification through sanctification. Again, can we agree that this is the fundamental difference? Not to debate the issue at hand, but to clarify what the debate actually is in all honesty. Again, the goal of this series is clarification, not persuasion.
I agree. We are clarifying, not persuading right now.
That being said, can you provide historic/fundamental predominant teachings that would concur with where you believe NC have departed?
Historically, NC’s view the sacraments not much different than the Jews viewed many of their Old Covenant rituals. Passover was to be used as a motivating memorial for the Jews to remember the freedom they were given. Because of the trust placed in the blood, salvation (justification) was secured. Type and anti-type for you and me. We are to reflect the joy and liberation of our justification as continual grounds for our sanctification. No different is the eucharist; proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes. It is not a mere symbolic exercise so much as it is designed to remind us in order that it would motivate us towards holiness, via glory and grace.
What evangelicals would assert what you are saying? I’ve been a Christian for 38 years, “reformed” for over 20, but I have never once heard the concept that “justification…makes sanctification possible, but does not feed [motivate?] it.” What classical “reformers” who you would not classify as NC, have stated what you just said? I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that I’ve never heard/read anything like that.
Q: Good clarifying response. Let me therefore answer. First, because New Calvinism is relatively new on the scene and unique in its tenets, there wouldn’t be an abundant need for such a clarification, the former being assumed. But yet, there are examples. Secondly before I give an example, evangelicals don’t look to the Reformers as authority for truth. Jay Adams is considered to be a contemporary Reformer (and also a rabid Calvin buff), being known as “the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement,” and he stated the following:
“The problem with Sonship [what New Calvinism was called in the 80’s and 90’s] is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it. As a declaration of forgiveness, pardon, and adoption into the family of God, it is (remember) a legal act. It changes the standing, but not the condition, of the person who is justified.
On the other hand, regeneration (quickening, or making alive; Ephesians 2:5) is the true source of sanctification. Justification deals with guilt; regeneration and sanctification deal with corruption. Regeneration, the true source of sanctification (growing out of sinful living into holy living)….”
Though Adams is Reformed, I would strongly contend that this is the traditional evangelical view of justification and sanctification. I would also add Floyd Barackman’s definitions of justification and regeneration. Again, Reformed, but agreeing with traditional evangelicalism:
“Justification is the act of God whereby He acquits the gospel believer of the divine verdict of condemnation and declares him to be righteous….Regeneration is the act of God whereby He cleanses the gospel believer, renews the immaterial part of his human nature , and imparts to him spiritual life. ”
After we are done with this part, I think another question worthy of investigation is the following: Is New Calvinism the same as Old Calvinism?
Three Literary Schemas New Calvinists Don’t Like to Talk About
“This is why New Calvinism must be stopped. It redefines faith, short-circuits sanctification, and deprives the saints of experiencing true blessings by replacing true literary schemas with the Ind/Imp.”
I have written many articles about the whole the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event thing. Chapter 12 of the new book addresses this fallacy in detail. Supposedly, the Bible was written with a schema that always precedes commands with a description of Christ’s redemptive work—indicating that all of our works flow naturally from a deeper understanding of redemption. This also, supposedly, purifies our motives because we are then motivated by gratitude and not any kind of effort to please God in “our own efforts.”
Problem is, that order is often reversed throughout Scripture and indicates are often contingent upon the completion of the imperative. Also, many imperatives are based on things God hasn’t done yet, and not necessarily the “finished works of Christ.” Pathetically, New Calvinists then argue that the preceding indicative, no matter how far back, is always linked to the imperative. So, some indicative two books back and regarding a totally different subject is what we should be linking said imperative with. Whatever.
Other literary schemas are conveniently never spoken of. I wrote an article a couple of days ago that was a little testy because this whole Ind/Imp thing is really getting on my nerves (http://wp.me/pmd7S-XO). The schema written about in that article speaks of faith and obedience being the same thing in Scripture. A friend of the ministry called for an adjustment regarding the following statement I made in the article: “Obedience doesn’t come from faith or flow from faith, it is faith.” His comments in regard to this statement are worth restating:
Ok, Faith is obedience in some sense, but obedience also comes from Faith too. Faith is being sure, understanding the value of what’s being said – it’s the motive. Motives produce action, they go together. Christ had compassion, therefore He healed. By Faith we move:
Rom 1:5 “to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name’s sake.”
Phil 2:17 “the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you.”
1 Thess 1:3 “We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Anon said: “Faith that doesn’t work isn’t faith.”
True, but two ways of Faith:
Faith does not work in regard to the forgiveness of sins because God doesn’t ask it. Rom 3:25 says “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.” Therefore Paul says “the man who does not work” according to David: “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.” So, by faith alone we are forgiven and “we have gained access into this grace in which we now stand.”
However, Faith does work (active) when commanded and is blessed:
Gen 22:15 “The angel of the LORD called to Abraham from heaven a second time 16 and said, “I swear by myself, declares the LORD, that because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.”
So Christians do like Father Abraham, “the man of Faith.” We are the predestinated children of Abraham. Who did Christ come to help? Heb 2:16 “For surely it is not angels he (Christ) helps, but Abraham’s descendants.”
Arkansas Bill
Bill makes a valid argument, but I think he would also agree that obedience is more than a mere product of faith. After all, James said Abraham’s faith was “completed” by his obedience (2:22). In fact, James 2:14-26 bolsters the argument. James even says that works apart from faith is like a body that has no spirit (v26). Sounds like oneness to me. I made the following statement in the same article: “….faith is not faith until it does something” I stand by that statement, and the Scriptures are saturated with the literary schema that makes the two same. For instance, unbelievers are called on to do what? Believe, right? Consider these verses which I think call on unbelievers to do the same thing, but in a different way:
Acts 3:19
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Acts 8:22
Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.
Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.
Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
1 Peter 4:17
For it is time for judgment to begin with the family of God; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?
1 Peter 1:2
Who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
Of course, Christians have to know this first, and therefore understand the powerful lesson that this schema teaches: obedience whether we feel like it or not leads to the blessings of experiencing the blessings of our salvation to the degree that God wants us to. In 1Peter chapter 1, Peter instructs us to “add” to our faith. This is utterly profound. We are not to wait around for faith to “fuel” obedience as the New Calvinist crowd says to do, we are to “add” to the faith that we believe is in us because the word of God says it’s there, but we have to appropriate it.
Be sure of this: Christians who lack assurance of salvation need to add obedience to their faith—that’s Peter’s whole point in that chapter. Nothing fuels boldness like assurance; if we are 100% assured of our standing with God, we are likely to do anything for Him. This is an UPWARD spiral, unlike the false teaching of New Calvinist’s like Jerry Bridges who teaches that the cure for doubt is to preach grace to ourselves till the doubt goes away. That’s nothing more than searing our consciences with a hot iron. Bridges and other New Calvinists even say that to be motivated by guilt is wrong. No, guilt is a spiritual motivator—telling us that we are not adding enough obedience to our faith and thereby “completing” it. Paul told Timothy to keep a clear conscience before God and men (1Timothy 1:5,19 and 3:9).
Also consider these verses:
2 Corinthians 1:12
Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace.
2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God.
2 Corinthians 5:11
Since, then, we know what it is to fear the Lord, we try to persuade others. What we are is plain to God, and I hope it is also plain to your conscience.
Titus 1:15
To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted.
Hebrews 13:18
Pray for us. We are sure that we have a clear conscience and desire to live honorably in every way.
1 Peter 3:16
keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
1 Peter 3:21
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
This is the first schema New Calvinists don’t want you to know about—the schema that doesn’t wait for a process between faith and obedience to legitimize it. It contradicts the supposed error of “leaping from command to obedience.” This is why New Calvinism is so dangerous and will ruin people’s lives.
The second schema New Calvinists either avoid or distort is the put off/put on schema. Where to even start on this one. Christ uses this schema throughout the Sermon on the Mount. The problem, why you do it, stop doing that, and start doing this. A good example is Ephesians 5: 3,4;
But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.
Put off foul conversation, put on thankfulness. This also tells us that this behavior is driven by unthankfulness (ie., course joking around the water cooler at work). Other examples are Ephesians 4:25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 5:4,11,18, 6:4, Psalm 1, Galatians 5:19-23, 3John 11, Hebrews 10:25, 1Peter 2:1-2, 3:9, Matthew 16:24, 1Thessalonians 1:9, 5:6,15, 1Peter 1:14-15, 2:11-12, 4:2, 5:2,3-6, Romans 12:16,21, 13:12, 14:17, 15:1-2, Galatians 6:3-4,8 Philipians 2:3, 21, 3:3, 4:6, Colossians 3:2, 5-10, 1Timothy 4:7, 6:11, 6:17, 2Timothy 1:7, Titus 2:11-12, James 1:22, 1John 3:18, 4:18, Acts 18:9.
To downplay this schema as New Calvinists do strikes at the very heart of sanctification which is Ephesians 4:22-24; it calls us to put off the old person and put on the new creature created in Christ. We have the fullness of Christ already, we need to put it on as we discover the attributes in Scripture.
The third schema is obedience leads to blessings/peace. This contradicts the New Calvinist teachings that right feelings always precede right doing. Like all other New Calvinist teachings, the exact opposite is true. The most obvious is James 1:25. It plainly states that the blessings are IN the doing. Philippians 4:2-9 concludes with the God of peace being with us as a result of right thinking, right doing, and right praying.
This is why New Calvinism must be stopped. It redefines faith, short-circuits sanctification, and deprives the saints of experiencing true blessings by replacing true literary schemas with the Ind/Imp. Though that schema has some application for being encouraged and motivated by what God has done—to make it the only and primary motivator will lead Christians into treacherous waters.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 2
Q: There is a lot here, but let me start with the perspicuity of Scripture. Would you give the new believer any instruction as to how to approach the Scriptures?
Yes. I’d refer them to R.C. Sproul’s, Knowing Scripture, as a healthy hermeneutical guide. That’s a great introductory resource, in my opinion. From there, either Louis Berkhoff or Bernard Ramm would be a next hermeneutical reference.
Q: Aside from that, what would be your position on the new believer reading the Sermon on the Mount without any hermeneutical perspective whatsoever? Matthew 5:3 says that those who heard the sermon firsthand, the peasantry of that day, were “taught” by Christ. The new believer is therefore in no diiferent position than those who sat and listened to Christ that day. Everything needed to be “taught” is in that sermon. What do you think the hermeneutic is for that sermon? Was one presented in the sermon? If not, how should the believer listen to that sermon?
Hermeneutics guide our understanding of hearing/reading all things, all contexts. Whether a book or a sermon, there are, “rules” for how we understand what is being communicated. That’s what separates the sane from the insane J.
Again, in my understanding of not only the perspicuity of Scripture, but most forms of communication, I’d rely on that simplicity to guide the listener/reader’s heart and mind as he learns from Christ and the sermon on the mount. Everything that is written/spoken has a context to it, even the sermon on the mount. A hyper-literal understanding by a listener would miss what Christ was saying. Likewise, a hyper-spiritual understanding would also miss the boat. However, of those whose hearts are being drawn by the Holy Spirit, Christ’s sheep, it is they who will press for clarification, to truly seek to understand what God’s voice, their Shepherd, is saying… to them.
Q: Where do you stand on Michael Horton’s view that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Scriptures are viewed in a redemptive context? He is clear on this, stating on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” that NOTHING brings life to the believer but the Spirit working “through the Gospel” when it is “revisited afresh.”
To be honest, I’m not much of a Horton fan, but there is some validity, I believe, in what his gospel centeredness is trying to communicate.
Jesus once rebuked the Pharisees by saying, “You search the scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life…” His point was, you do not have nor will you attain eternal life because your approach to scripture is not theocentric (i.e., gospel driven…). That is, the heart, of what I believe Horton is trying to communicate. It’s not a matter of, does the sermon on the mount teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence, apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit within the heart/mind of a listener/reader, they will never hear Christ’s voice, and listen.
The sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit is an ongoing and synergistic work of God, one whereby as his grace empowers and illuminates, our hearts are changed and our minds conform more and more to the image of Christ. But again, the question then becomes, does the HS empower and illuminate only through the lenses of the gospel (i.e., the doctrine of sola fide), or does the term “gospel” carry with it a bit more of a broader meaning or understanding. I would propose the answer, according to Scripture, is both.
Q: What’s your take on 2Timothy 3:16,17?; ” All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This seems to be a strange place for the apostle to not mention anything about the centrality of the gospel in Scripture.
In fact, let me expand on that a little. In 2Peter ch1, Peter says the time of his departure was near and he was emphasizing the one message that was most important to him, and that he wanted to continually remind them of. His emphasis was to remind them to be continually adding eight things to their faith. Again, this seems to be a strange place to leave out any mention of the centrality of the gospel. Not only that, he emphasizes adding to the foundation of their faith, rather than going back to it. In Christ’s mandate to the church in Matthew 28, an emphasis on all that he had commanded verses the centrality of the gospel seems to be yet another place where the emphasis on the gospel is missing at a very opportune time. What would be your reply to this concern?
For starters, I agree with and believe 2 Timothy 3:16, 17. Secondly, whether or not Paul explicitly interjects the centrality of the gospel into every doctrinal treatise, per se’, does not suggest the centrality of the gospel does not foundationally underlie his teaching.
In Galatians, Paul addresses a church whose life and practice is totally messed up because they have abandoned the gospel. Hence, their poor sanctification is subject to their wrong understanding and continued application of their justification. To the NC, the centrality of the gospel of glory and grace is foundational for living out 2 Timothy 3:16, 17.
Scripture is God-breathed, but it is not ‘inhaled” by you or me unless the Holy Spirit has revived the heart to embrace the God centered value of what was divinely spoken.
Q: So, you wouldn’t object to our hypothetical new believer putting just as much stock in read, learn, and obey (as would obviously be taken from the 1Timothy text) ; as he would gospel appreciation, gratitude, doxology, obedience. Your saying both are important (?).
Yes, for in his reading, learning etc., he would learn of obedience, gospel appreciation, grace/gratitude, doxology etc. He would learn how to, increasingly, please God.
Q: So here, you would differ from other NC like Michael Horton and Chad Bresson, ie., ” We cannot make the leap from description to commandment without violating the gist of the text.” You can add to this if I have interpreted incorrectly.
I have not read the entirety of this quote to adequately respond, but as I previously stated, I am a bit of NC hybrid, so that might be a reasonable assumption.
Q: In regard to your comments on Galatians, it would seem you’re toeing the NC line that Galatians is about sanctification and not justification (?).
I would say, yes, Galatians is dealing with the consequent doctrine(s) of sanctification and how an incorrect understanding of justification negatively affects one’s spiritual walk. However, at the same time, I do believe Paul is being very direct to his “christian” audience, whereby he warns the antinomians that they are sadly mistaken if they believe their faith is genuine if they continue to, habitually, live the life of gross immorality that they continue to live. To these “christians” I believe Paul is warning them, they are about to be, if not already, cut off from Christ (that is to say, the visible body of Christ, the Church).
It is herein I believe most Calvinists don’t quite know what the heck to do with passages that speak of the consequences of habitual disobedience, for those who would say they have taken the name and yolk of Christ. Most reformed guys simply say, “We’re eternally secure in Christ, so there can’t ever be any reference to somebody [secure in Christ] losing their salvation. For myself, I believe Scripture teaches the body of Christ is both visible and invisible. All who are a part of the invisible body of Christ (united through faith alone), are also a part of the visible body. However, not all that are a part of the visible body of Christ (i.e., tares and wolves in sheep’s clothing etc.) are truly united to Christ and the invisible church. Of the latter individuals, who I believe live and breathe and walk in our midst as they did during Jesus’ day, I believe Scripture speaks directly to, warning such individuals, that their “faith” does not reflect one who has, authentically, repented and made Jesus lord of their life.
Q: But most NC teach that the Galatian error had to do with them thinking they could participate in sanctification, which is supposedly cutting in on the fruits of justification. In other words, instead of sanctification being 100% fruits of justification, the Galatians were adding to the fruits of justification by their own efforts; ie., the gospel plus works. You say their distorted view of justification effected their sanctification. Could you clarify that a little more?
TO BE CONTINUED
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments