“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 6: Can Christian Women Gone Wild Save Us From New Calvinism?
I have shared my theory in other posts that contemporary antinomians are like serial criminals. Not in essence of being actual criminals, but in their deep-seated desire to get caught. You have seen the plot in movies—serial criminals always dropping catch me if you can hints to the police. At least two antinomians of our day, Tullian Tchividjian and John Piper, are good examples of this. But first, let me say that I realize that I am one of the very few people around who equate Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology ( Tim Keller, a significant forerunner of Sonship theology, is one of the founders of TGC) / the gospel-driven life with antinomianism. However, my reasoning is simple; if we are sanctified by justification, that excludes the law either by obligation or ability. Neither do I buy into the idea that thinking the law is good—is an acceptable replacement for an obligation to obey it. Also, the fact that I rubbed shoulders with six GS proponents for several years, and I’m privy to the fact that they bragged about being antinomians is not helpful to those who are trying to persuade me otherwise.
Hold on, my phone is ringing: “Oh! Hi honey. Uh—uh , ya, hmmm. I know sweety, we have discussed this before—getting to the point and such, ya, I will get to the women shortly. Ok, talk to you later, bye!”
Anyway, Tullian Tchividjian recently dropped a really big hint by promoting the idea that preachers should strive to be accused of antinomianism as a way to validate their preaching as having enough Jesus. When one, lone man protested, it made national headlines in Christian circles. But despite Tchividjian’s efforts, it didn’t work. The one, lone protestant focused on the accusation element without considering for a moment that maybe TT really is antinomian. Whew, that was a close one! Michael Horton followed the same week by accusing an accuser of accusing him of antinomianism when the accuser never even used the word in the accusation. Another hint? Hmmmm.
Also, we have John Piper, the First Pope of New Calvinism, continually drawing attention to himself (hints?) by promoting heretics and refusing to correct associates that use profanity in public, while notable evangelicals at large cover for him, and not for a moment considering that any of this has anything to do with the guy’s theology while teaching that what we believe always dictates what we do—unless you’re Pope John the First. A prime example of this is Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God conventions. But hello, when you believe that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, how can the particular elements of God’s truth really have that much significance? If Warren also believes that the Bible is a plenary gospel narrative, everything else is fair game—so why wouldn’t they hangout together? In fact, a reader sent me a quote by Tchividjian in regard to his defense of Piper for the invite by saying something like this: “All truth is God’s truth, even if it comes from Rick Warren.”
But what’s up with Piper being defended by the likes of Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right-hand guy, in the following post: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html ? “I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors.” Unbelievable. That is, until you read this in the same post:
“Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can’t touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper’s live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.
It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders’ roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper’s stature. These things ought not to be.”
First of all, God is sovereign; it is obvious that God planned before the foundation of the Earth for me to marry Susan and not the woman who called Piper a clown. Besides, in the spirit of defending people just because we like them, are we sure that wasn’t her way of saying Piper is a follower of Edmund Clowney? As I unravel the sorted history of New Calvinism, there is some question as to who was really the father of Sonship theology that is the fundamental basis for neo-Calvinism—Clowney, or John “Jack” Miller. Clowney wrote Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, and Christian Meditation. Any of those themes sound familiar in Piper’s teachings? But if that’s not the case, to Phil Johnson’s point, how dare that woomun call out a man of “Piper’s stature” (did he really say that? Let me check again.Yep, he sure did). Well, that pretty much says it all—if one of the who’s who of the evangelical world teaches error, the uneducated book-buying peasants of American church culture need to keep their mouths shut and submit to the “ruling elders.” Worse yet, if not unthinkable, is the idea that one of the woomun peasants would speak out!
If Phil would check Acts 17:11: the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for vetting Paul’s (the apostle) teachings and no gender is mentioned. In fact, verse 12 seems to indicate women were among them. And I know this is difficult for Phil, but John Piper is no apostle Paul. Furthermore, Priscilla and Aquila both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26), and I doubt Piper is an Apollos as well. As far as Phil’s citing of 1Timothy 2:12, because of 1Corinthians 14:34, I would think Paul is referring to the corporate setting, and not the milieu of life in general. Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, agrees; see his comments on 1Timothy 2:12 in his Bible Commentary, page 1783. He states the following: “He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3,4).” John’s over the Seminary and Phil’s over other stuff, right?
Moreover, now that we have established that women can callout man-leaders of high stature, Phil apparently deleted a woman who was dead-on regarding Piper taking a permanent sabbatical. Piper took an eight-month sabbatical for beyond unbiblical reasons. An eight-month, paid sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.”? And the obvious logical conclusion as follows: an eight-month sabbatical instead of being counseled by his own elders; where is all of that in the Bible? Add to that his announcement that he is hoping to remain pastor there five years after returning from his sabbatical. The lady is absolutely right, why not just retire and be done with it? And by the way, HOW DO YOU PREDETERMINE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ELIMINATE “SEVERAL SPECIES OF HEART IDOLS”? ARE THEY THE EIGHT-MONTH TYPE? Have we lost our minds?
Phil also wrote: “It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women….” Yes, discerning Christian woman gone wild, and thank goodness for them. Phil sates that it is mostly women who are speaking up and calling for leaders to be held accountable. Sad. And the women folk are right about something else: something can be done about it; separation, not inviting them to conferences (Matthew 18:17). Rejection, not fellowship (Titus 3:10 Rom 16:17,18), Rebuke, not excuses (1Timothy 5:19).
John Piper is one of the featured speakers at this years TGC conference in Chicago. Who knows what hint he will drop this time around. Will some Christian woman gone wild have to satisfy his deep-seated desire to be exposed? Can Christian women gone wild save the church from New Calvinism? Stay tuned.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 2: The 2011 Sonship Coalition
I started working on a project the other day. Some readers have requested that I put together a directory / list of leaders and organizations that promote Gospel Sanctification. Why? Because GS is covert and very subtle, and lay people, especially those in the process of searching for another church, don’t have two years to figure out whether the doctrine is being promoted or not. Why don’t they just ask? Because in most cases leaders who propagate GS / Sonship think they have a right to withhold information “until the people are ready for the totality of this hard truth recently rediscovered.”
So, while working on the list of organizations, I went (for the first time) to The Gospel Coalition website. My discoveries made my heart sink. TGC is an information / network organization bringing together churches “of like mind.” The network is a well-oiled, slick machine that appears to be spreading this doctrine like the mother of all Bubonic plagues.
Indicative of the doctrine’s covert character is the fact that all the information posted on the website appears to represent a deeply heartfelt endeavor to spread an orthodox revival throughout Christianity. All of the communication is the usual gospel-speak Christians are accustomed to, but one has to know the doctrine and read carefully to see the nuanced message that is presented. For instance, few Christians would disagree with the following: “We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Most Christians will immediately focus on the familiar “through faith alone in Christ alone” part of this sentence, but those familiar with GS will immediately connect this justification statement with “invigorating churches.” Hence, we see the veiled propagation of sanctification by justification.
Moreover, and more to the point of this post, the despicable covertness of this movement can be seen in the replacement of “Sonship” with “Gospel.” GS / Sonship proponents clearly avoid labels, which are useful in categorizing truth. Among the many speakers at the yet future TGC 2011 conference in Chicago are the who’s who of Sonship Theology.
Two of the speakers, Tim Keller and David Powlison, are no-brainers—it is common knowledge that both of these men were mentored by Dr. Jack Miller, the father of Sonship Theology. Of more interest and worthy of notation is another speaker, Darrin Patrick, who is the vice president of the Acts 29 Church Planting Network and the founding pastor of the Journey Church in St. Louis. He is considered to be an expert on church planting and speaks regularly at pastor’s conferences and training events for church planters. He is also the author of Church Planter: the man the message and the mission. The book is barley less than a treatise on Sonship sanctification by justification. On page 169 he writes the following:
“We’ll close this chapter and section with the words of the late Jack Miller: ’The more that you know that you are stained to the bone with selfish impulses, the more that you see how you hold out against the will of the Lord, the more you go to Christ as a thirsty sinner who finds deeper cleansing, more life and greater joy through the Spirit.’”
In this quotation by Miller, we see the essence of the Sonship doctrine; specifically, that we grow spiritually via the same way we were saved, by focusing on our hopeless enslavement to sin (on page 167, Patrick propagates the Sonship element of the total depravity of the saints by stating that Christians are “completely sinful.”), and the continual confession thereof. Just prior to quoting Miller on the same page, Patrick says the following: “The way to deal with sin and idolatry is to repent of them and believe the gospel….In Paul’s first letter to the church at Thessalonica, Paul praises the church for how they ‘turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.’ May this be said of us and our churches as we repent and believe the gospel.”
Christians are not sanctified by practicing our initial salvation experience (“repent and believe the gospel”). Notice also how the apostle Paul spoke of what the Thessalonians did as being in the past tense, but Patrick says the same thing needs to be true of us as if Paul had said, “you turn [present tense] from idols to serve the living God.” On page 162, Patrick regurgitates Miller’s theory regarding idols of the heart as articulated in “Repentance and the 20th Century Man.” He also noted a book by David Powlison that, like 20th Century Man, classifies different types of idols (“Idols of the Heart in Vanity Fair). Apparently, Miller devised twenty-one different types, or classifications of idols.
Another speaker scheduled to speak at the 2011 TGC conference, Mark Driscoll, wrote the forward to the aforementioned book. In the forward, he commends Patrick for being “gospel centered,” ie., the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us.
I know of a particular situation regarding a longstanding struggle between some elders and a parishioner who was confused by their teachings. The tension went on for about two years and included several meetings, emails, and confrontations. The elders insisted that what they were teaching was orthodox and not identifiable with any particular movement—this while the ink on “Biblical Sonship” by Jay Adams had barley dried. The elders were afraid that the “Sonship” nomenclature would let the cat out of the bag before the rest of the congregation was “ready for the whole truth.” Though the parishioner never identified the doctrine as Sonship, he put together a model of plenary justification and left that particular church. It was unlikely that the parishioner would have been able to articulate the doctrine to the rest of the congregation in a way that would have made the doctrine understandable, but nevertheless, the elders attempted to muzzle the parishioner and the end results were tragic.
This is indicative of the same covert wickedness of the so-called “Gospel Coalition.” They don’t teach the true gospel; their gospel is the half-gospel of Jesus as savior only, and not Lord as well. That’s very important because He said that He is both. It is a gospel that reduces our sanctification repertoire to two elements: belief and repentance. It is not the gospel; it is Jack Miller Sonship theology. And I am of the opinion that they need help in regard to telling the truth about what they teach. Lord willing, I will be of much help to them.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 1: Saving Dr. Mohler [From the past, but I still had my sense of humor.]
Dr. Mohler,
Thank you for your prompt response to my open letter, http://wp.me/pmd7S-ww . Your response stated the following:
“I received and read with interest your letter received in my office on February 14, 2011. I appreciate your concern to uphold biblical doctrine, but I cannot recognize in your letter the beliefs of anyone that I know.
I stand for and teach the doctrine historically held by Southern Baptist and in complete accordance with our denominational confessions of faith.
I do appreciate your concern for the biblical fidelity and pray that God will always protect his church from error.”
Dr. Mohler, I fear that I have dropped the ball by not opening all of my mail sooner because of the following: you don’t know anyone who holds to the doctrine described in my letter, but you will soon be attending the 2011Gospel Coalition conference in Chicago. In order to protect your innocence, I am going to inform you of some of the men who will be there that you don’t know. Also, their pictures can be viewed here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/conferences/2011/#speakers so you will know them if or when you see them.
First, let’s review the primary concern expressed in my letter concerning Sonship theology:
“In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed ‘Sonship Theology’…. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, ‘We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.’ In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999 [correction: 1996]. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
‘This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life…It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship 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.’”
First, let me also warn you that the Gospel Coalition could be promoting this doctrine as an organization. I’m sure you wouldn’t associate with them if you were aware of that, unless you, in fact, support the doctrine also, but that’s impossible because you said you didn’t know anyone who believes in Sonship theology. So, in regard to my first concern, let’s consider this excerpt from my letter: “[The doctrine] maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
On the Gospel Coalition website, their Confessional Statement is entitled “The Gospel for All of Life.” Hmmm, kinda sounds like “….the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.” They also say this in the same statement: “We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Evangelism or the unsaved is not the object of this sentence, “churches” are. And how will they have “new hope” and “compelling joy”? By “….grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Kinda sounds like “…maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error….and…. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification.”
But without further ado, let me caution you regarding those who you don’t know that will be at the conference.
Please look out for this guy; he will be there, and his name is David Powlison. Recently, he conducted a seminar at John Piper’s church and told the audience that Jack Miller was his mentor. He then proceeded to complain that Jay Adams criticized Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves.” However, he forgot to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book. Maybe Dr. Powlison doesn’t agree with his “mentor” concerning Sonship theology, but then why would he criticize Adams for criticizing the Sonship mantra? Don’t know, but maybe if you meet him at the conference, you could ask. Let me know.
The next guy is Tim Keller. Please note his picture at the aforementioned link. He will be there also. He is well known as a Sonship advocate / teacher. In a post entitled, “Seven Rivers Church: a sonship home,” a pastor wrote the following:
“I’m somewhat new to the PCA and I’m still finding out many of the denominations strengths. One strength I’ve been blessed by is her sonship pastoral theology. Sonship is a brand of theology that places a great deal of emphasis on the saving benefits we have in Christ as redeemed children of God [that’s subtle]. It’s not afraid to talk about duty or commands of obedience that we are responsible for [that is—in its “gospel context”] but it does so from the vantage point of Christ redeeming work [right, like I said, in its “gospel context”]. It takes sin seriously but grace and transformation even more seriously [because we’re totally depraved and can’t keep the law anyway]. You can find Sonship theology in many churches in the PCA – such as New Life Churches in Philadelphia, Redeemer in NYC, and Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL.
Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary [that’s not my understanding, but for sure it came from Westminster and not the Bible], came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller [that would be Jack Miller], rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF [David Powlison], entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s [he will be at the conference] preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL)” http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/seven-rivers-church-a-sonship-home
Actually, I picked that quote but a google search with “Tim Keller—sonship” will produce a wealth of documentation connecting him to Sonship theology. I like the above quote because it mentions other names and gives me the opportunity to point out that many respected leaders in the PCA rejected Sonship and stand against it. One example can be noted here:
http://eastwoodchurch.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=1
I have a great idea; when you meet Tim Keller, ask him what Sonship theology has in common with The Gospel Coalition. If you can, let me know.
Next is Tullian Tchividjian. He will be there also. He said the following on The Gospel Coalition blog:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. The gospel, in other words, isn’t just the power of God to save you; it’s the power of God to grow you once you’re saved. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day.”
Is it just me? I think many Southern Baptist would have a problem with that statement.
Be careful at that conference Dr. Mohler. I could list many more but they’re pretty soft targets—being Charismatics, postmoderns, and those who believe in baptismal regeneration and such. Which brings up one last question: Is it true that those doctrinal considerations are now secondary to “getting the gospel right”? If you can, let me know.
paul
A Response to a Follower of John Piper
The following comment is a good opportunity to clarify John Piper’s doctrine:
Dane,
I will respond line by the line and post it. My responses are in brackets.
“Have you ever even read Piper; his book on missions for instance?”
[Yes, I have read plenty of Piper, but even if I haven’t, what does that have to do with the message he delivered at the 2010 “Together for Gospel Sanctification” (T4GS) conference? Also, I realize that he writes and teaches some really cool stuff, but so does Joel Olsteen.]
“You act as if he is instructing Christians to sit on their thumbs and meditate all day.”
[No, but since I agree with your assessment on what Piper believes on that point:]
‘The point in meditation upon Christ and his gospels is to humble us so we don’t pridefully depend on our works instead of His grace.”
[Right, except for the fact that Piper believes the whole Bible is about the gospel, not just the Gospels. In other words, he believes the whole Bible is about justification. In a very scary interview between DA Carson and Tim Keller, close associates of Piper, and also GS advocates, which I believe was a review concerning the upcoming 2012 T4GS conference, they talked about how they were going to teach pastors to “drive toward Christ and the gospel,” and to show what “Biblical Theology,” ie., the Christocentric redemptive-historical hermeneutic, dubbed BT by Geerhardus Vos, “looks like,” in order to “read the Bible in such a way that you {always} get to Jesus.” Whether Piper, Keller, or Carson, I find their nuanced verbiage sickening. If you are going to teach redemptive-historical hermeneutics, for the love of mercy just say so. Also, I assume all of the fawning pastors at that conference will fail to pick-up on the fact that they are being taught to interpret the Bible with a theology (as in “Biblical Theology”), which is Interpretive No-No’s 101. Of course, they are, in fact, going to teach a hermeneutic; only the terminology should raise a red flag, which it won’t.
Notice in your statement that you correctly identify what Piper believes: ANY works on our part in sanctification will result in prideful works INSTEAD of grace. Of course, evangelicals don’t believe that we “depend” on our own works alone in sanctification, but that doesn’t mean we don’t work. But in the video, “The Gospel in 6 Minutes,” which is an excerpt from one of his (Piper’s) sermons, he says to “never {he repeats “never” like, 20 times} separate the gospel from sanctification.” The gospel is received by faith alone. So this clearly means that Piper, as all GS proponents, believes in sanctification by justification, or sanctification by faith alone. This is what’s behind meditating on the gospel to the exclusion of “….works instead of His grace.” In fact, Piper believes that any effort on our part in the sanctification process is works salvation. Though Piper, like most GS advocates, speaks in nuance, the logical conclusion of what he says in the aforementioned sermon is irrefutable. I comment in another post accordingly:
“Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved. Also note how he uses expressions of justification and sanctification interchangeably. The topics of his paragraphs in the same general context often look like this: Justification, sanctification, justification, sanctification. Likewise, Piper and many others such as Paul Tripp often use justification verses to make points about sanctification. I have cited many, many, examples of this in previous articles, and a prime example would be pages 64 and 65 of ‘How People Change.’” ]
“His grace motivates us to works.”
[Not exactly. Piper believes in the total depravity of the saints. Therefore, it stands to reason that the totally depraved can’t be rightly motivated to do anything. In fact, he teaches that joy gives all works moral value and that joy is always a gift from God. In essence, Piper calls on us to sin (work in our own efforts while asking God to forgive us—as you said, this keeps us humble) while waiting for God to grant us joy as a gift. This is what he clearly says on page 43 of “When I Don’t Desire God: How to Fight for Joy.” Hence, like Paul Tripp and many others, Piper teaches that sin is part of God’s prescription for sanctification. The “fight for joy” is—us necessarily sinning; Piper clearly says so. Also, in the short, three-chapter ebook, “Treating Duty as Delight is Controversial” which can be found on his website, Piper clearly says we are, as Christians, “enslaved to sinful passions” and specifically cites Romans 6:17, which speaks concerning our previous unregenerate state before salvation. Per the usual, the first pope of New Calvinism can say a verse says one thing when it clearly says something else because, well, he’s the Pope.]
“Please stop wasting your time criticizing Christians that you are jealous of and causing divisions in the church.”
[ Why would I be jealous of a false teacher? And why are you following this guy? He is in grave, stark contrast to the likes of JC Ryle, BB Warfield, and many, many, others. And truth doesn’t cause division, error does—truth unifies. And, I have seen the divisions / controversies / confusion that Piper’s teachings cause—first hand. Like the company that split because two of the partners stopped doing their job because: to do certain elements of their job that didn’t give them joy would be sin. Supposedly. Like the guy who prayed for hours begging God to save him, and God supposedly wouldn’t, because he couldn’t experience “the treasure chest of joy” that supposedly always accompanies salvation.
No, I’m not wasting my time. I will fight this hideous doctrine till God gives me my last breath or by God’s decree GS is put out of business: whichever happens first.]
paul
Enough With the Puritans Already!
Why do proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology quote creeds and Puritans so much? It’s because they can’t make their case from Scripture; and, the redemptive-historical hermeneutic eliminates the use of Scripture to draw conclusions about truth from the text. That’s why. When the supposed primary purpose of Scripture is to “show forth the gospel narrative” for both believers and unbelievers, rather than a proof text for issues of life—the gap needs to be filled with something, so why not Puritans and creeds? Besides, they are supposedly the last ones in redemptive history to be enlightened enough to know that every verse in the Bible is about justification.
I will soon be launching into some research regarding this issue, but I have already been sent some information suggesting that GS/Sonship advocates routinely misrepresent Marshall, Murray, and Owen to make points. But for now, my preliminary thoughts are as follows:
1. Puritans and creeds are not inspired, and we have the same Holy Spirit they had / have.
2. Puritan writings are available in massive volumes, and even if Owen, Marshall, Murray, etc., did believe that “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” or “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,” such a minute portion could not be said to represent Puritan thought in general. And even if it did, so what? They are men, and the “Puritan” label is not a “Proof of Truth” seal. If what they said doesn’t align with Scripture, they can all hang it on their beaks as far as I’m concerned.
3. I have yet to see a Puritan quote, even by the New Calvinists, that resembles anything such as : “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us” or, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday,”
4. Puritan writings are translated into modern English by heaven-only-knows who. They are uninspired translations from men, and translated by men.
5. New Calvinists rarely quote the specific Puritan source (for example, title, volume, page, etc.). So the accuracy of the quote cannot usually be verified.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments