A letter From “Bob”: How GS/Sonship Theology Affects Church in Real Life
I received the following email from a reader this week. My response follows. His name and some other details have been changed to protect his identity. Of course, not all GS/Sonship leaders are heavy-handed, but in many such churches the following post would result in church discipline. The email is modified and posted with permission from the sender.
Dear Paul: In your 31. January 2011 blog, you open by stating:
“In all of my writings on gospel-driven sanctification / gospel sanctification, and its apparent mother, Sonship Theology, I have primarily addressed the error, and not its ill effects on discipleship and people’s lives. Basically, refutation of false doctrine has prevention in mind, not theological debate for entertainment purposes.” (emphasis added)
I got mixed up in the [name of church excluded], a PCA church. I had previously been involved in a Kellerite church, so I had been swimming in a sea of sonship (and taking on water from it!) for a couple of years in both places, but without ever having heard of sonship theology, (esp. not by name!), or known that that’s what was really being promoted there – it’s taught more by stealth, than openly admitted! Only when I was finally given the label – alerted to its existence by a pastor in another state. was I then able to put the dots together, and see that there was in fact a most definite method to the malaise which I had clearly perceived, but been totally ignorant of both the source, and the systematic nature of the problem!
However, until today, I’ve searched largely in vain for any solid critical material, or in-depth analyses directly addressing those errors of sonship theology that I’ve clearly experienced.
As your opening reference makes it sound like you yourself have written fairly extensively on this subject on various previous occasions, (“…all my writings…” ), I was wondering if you could therefore please be so kind as to e-mail me, or direct me to, any further details / critical analyses – both by yourself and others – of this movement, and its directly related errors?
Thanking you sincerely,
“Bob”
P.S. Can you also possibly shed any light on any particular (or non-standard) doctrine of “repentance” associated with sonship theology? (–the existence of which I’ve so far been similarly unaware of, but which I’ve just lately also begun to suspect…)
To wit: I quote some anonymized portions of an e-mail from someone else at [name of church excluded] (who claims he hasn’t been particularly exposed to their “sonship” teachings, but) who’s suddenly tried to begin invasively ‘counseling’ me in certain areas: [warning: a sudden interest in your life by elders of said churches could mean you’re asking too many questions—paul ] He wrote:
[ The content of this correspondence could reveal Bob’s identity so it has been excluded. The leader responded to Bob’s questions by asking Bob if he had applied any of their teachings to his life, and how that had been accomplished, posing the questions in such a way that called into question Bob’s humbleness and attitude toward “repentance.”]
(– His questions were in fact to a large extent totally off-base, and demonstrated a failure to have even read what I had written to him; but) some of his queries about repentance are kind of non-sequiturs, so I’m wondering if this individual may be operating from some particular understanding of “repentance” which I’m not familiar with? If he has some particular doctrine of, or expectations concerning “repenting” (how one repents, and then can testify to or document having done so?, or can measure one’s progress in having done so?) As I’m a bit mystified by his language and apparent, specific expectations, and wondering if there is also something more to this than meets the eye, at least, that of the uninitiated?
Thanks for any light you can shed!
My Response:
Bob,
My blog is dedicated to believers such as yourself for the purpose of contending for the faith and thereby pleasing the Lord. Last week, I added the Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology network, https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/ . Links to other material that contend against elements of this movement are in the right-hand column. Most of the writers are addressing elements but don’t understand how the elements / tenets fit together as a movement. This is because of the covert MO you mentioned that is prevalent within the movement. However, Jay Adams would be an exception to that (in regard to being opposed to the movement) and has even added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/
I have written a book that covers elements / tenets in detail that will be printed in a limited addition because I have been persuaded to write another book on GS from a different approach. The present book is in essay form and doesn’t cover the history of the movement as much as it should. The next book will be in chapter form and will include a detailed history of the movement, Lord willing, of course. The present book, which will be in print approximately four weeks from today, will stand in the gap until the next book is published.
Sadly, you are right, information regarding GS / Sonship is very scarce. First, in my opinion, I think many want to protect the integrity of Westminster Seminary, especially those who obtained their doctorate degrees there. Most of the doctrine’s elements were conceived by professors at WMTS. Secondly, there is a reluctance to stand against the “big names” in reformed circles. Thirdly, those who proffer the doctrine are deeply deceptive and ambiguous. Therefore, unraveling their deception is very labor-intensive. Fourthly, as you eluded to, they avoid labels for purposes of stealth, but invoke “THE GOSPEL” nomenclature as often as they can in their verbiage. Who wants to be perceived as being against the gospel? It’s a very effective cover. Fifthly, most reformed churches practice church discipline. Therefore, those who stand against this doctrine are in danger of being muzzled accordingly. Church discipline and excommunication have a huge stigma in reformed circles while the attitude among reformed leaders is “any Church discipline is good discipline.” They see church discipline being used as a weapon to muzzle as unfortunate collateral damage that is necessary for the betterment of the church as a whole. So, here is the point: a parishioner in church A can be placed under discipline for blogging about a reformed leader in church B. I have firsthand knowledge of a guy who pulled his blog down because the leaders of his church liked the other leader; he smelled church discipline coming.
This ministry has, and continues to counsel people on how to leave reformed churches who practice this doctrine with as little stress as possible. Furthermore, the conversation you shared with me in your correspondence is very indicative of the intimidating, heavy-handed methods of those in the movement. The Coral Ridge hostile takeover is a good example of this. Sixthly, the movement is new. It’s conception probably doesn’t date before 1980. Not only that, It started out as Sonship theology and changed to GS (gospel verbiage) when the Sonship label started taking on heavy fire. Therefore, God’s people really haven’t had time to get a full picture of the movement yet. These are six reasons among many others why I think information on this movement is scarce.
Well, that should take care of the “can I get more information?” question. Now for the “repentance” question. Yes, the movement practices an unorthodox form of repentance known as “deep repentance” or “intelligent repentance” or “repentance as a lifestyle.” Since the movement involves, as Jason Hood recently stated it, “sanctification by justification.” and justification is by faith and repentance only; hence, the only two supposed elements of sanctification must necessarily be embellished. Sonship theology has been confronted with three primary inquisitions over the years. First, “What about an ongoing practical application of the narrow concept of justification in the sanctification process?,” or, “So, what are WE supposed to do?” David Powlison answers that question with “heart theology.” The form of repentance you are talking about is part of that GS tenet. Secondly, “How do I know when I am obeying in my own efforts or yielding to Christ’s power?” John Piper answers that question with “Christian Hedonism.” And Thirdly, “How is the Bible used for justification only?” That’s answered with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic.
Lastly for now, I think your letter and my response can help many people. I would like to post on this while protecting your identity. This will also involve changing you name and some details you closed with. Let me know,
May we love the Lord’s truth more than men,
Paul M. Dohse
Jason Hood Decries “Sanctification by Justification” and…. Oh Brother!
Some weeks ago, Jason Hood wrote an article published in Christianity today protesting the benchmark set by New Calvinist (proponents of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology) to be accused of antinomianism. It incited an outcry against Hood’s accusation that New Calvinist are, in fact, antinomian, and not merely trying to be accused of such. However, the fact of the matter is that Hood’s article launched no such accusation. It’s like the bank robber walking down the street being asked by policemen if he’d seen any bank robbers running by and immediately replying, “I didn’t do it!” Hood responded to Dane Ortlund, one of the “young, [but educated] restless [with no life experience] and reformed [supposedly]” New Calvinist that asked him to recant his supposed accusation. Hood’s response was a thorough dressing-down of Ortlund and New Calvinism in general. Ortland’s response to Hood’s response was a typical New Calvinist response: a pretension of humbleness; points of supposed agreement; and why the points of agreement are really not what they seem to the unintelligent because of their point of disagreement based on the deep realities of their own gospel. See link here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2011/01/28/we-who-have-the-spirit-have-the-power-to-change/ and it really is must reading.
Most of what I have to say concerning this superb piece of literature can be summed up in Hood’s calling out of New Calvinism’s “sanctification by justification.” It really says it all. But Hood also takes note of New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints in this statement: ”Ortlund recently pointed out [as in, ‘hey guys, we’re looking too unorthodox on this one’] that we have been neglecting the doctrine of regeneration. As a result, we treat believers like unbelievers [emphasis mine].” It’s all very simple, only the unregenerate need justification, but you can’t have it both ways when thinking- Christians start asking questions.
Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlunds original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being “falsely” accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!
paul
My RC Sproul Challenge: Legalist or Not? And Why, or Why Not?
Poke anything written by “The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” or any other number of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship proponents—how could anything but an indictment of legalism come forth when you consider the following quotes by Sproul?
“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” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
1. Without both working, no work gets done: “ Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work.”
2. The imperative precedes the indicative: “I must work and God will work.”
3. Sanctification is hard work: “We are called to work, and to work hard.”
4. And with rigor: “ To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor.”
And: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty, by which the law of God is established. This book is a profound exposition of the biblical revelation of law. The Decalogue is explored in the depths of its many facets and nuances. This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law. It can help us delight in the Law as it was meant to be understood, and to delight in performing our duty to the One whose Law it is” (Forward: “Reasons for Duty” J. Gerstner).
1. So much for John Piper’s Christian Hedonism: “The gospel saves us not from duty, but unto duty,”
2. So much for New Covenant Theology: ”…. by which the law of God is established” [ouch!].
3. Just “more bad news”? “This book explains the Law, defends the Law, and shows the sweetness of the Law.”
It is way, way past the time for Carson, Horton, Keller, Mahaney, Piper, et al to continue getting a pass on contradicting respected orthodox teachers of our day. Is Sproul a legalist or not? We know what they can do with soft targets like Rob Bell and Joel Olsteen, but what about Sproul? And if he’s not a legalist, why not?
paul
An Open Letter to Dr. Albert Mohler Jr.
Dr. Mohler,
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Paul Dohse and I am a member of a Southern Baptist church in the Dayton, Ohio area. I also have the privilege of serving there as director of men’s ministry.
The purpose of this letter is the following: to request that you withdraw your association with Together for the Gospel (T4G) because the organization promotes a particular false doctrine. This letter will be posted on my blog as an open letter because several such letters to individuals and organizations have been ignored. In addition, it will make the continuance of my grievance to others within the Convention expedient as I am a layman with many other responsibilities.
I have no problem with Calvinism, but I cannot express in words how disappointed I am with you and others for turning a blind eye to grievous error from any individual who claims to be a Calvinist. Apparently, Calvinist nomenclature is a license to teach anything that one sees fit. As I continue to research this doctrine (not Calvinism) that is sweeping through Southern Baptist circles, at times it seems surreal that this ridiculous doctrine is being propagated in broad daylight, while you and others lend it your credibility. Because you are President over the “Flagship Seminary” of the SBC, I also fear that you have embraced this doctrine personally.
When I was a student at the WA Criswell Institute of Biblical Studies in the early eighties, we were taught to be leery of any doctrine that had a short history. Such is the case with the “gospel-driven life,” or Gospel Sanctification as some call it. 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.” Yet, CJ Mahaney, John Piper, DA Carson, Tim Keller, and many others promote the idea that this doctrine has been the true gospel from the beginning, and God is using the “New Calvinism” movement to reveal the “unadjusted gospel” in our day.
Many teaching this doctrine today were mentored by Jack Miller; such as, Tim Keller and David Powlison. 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. 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.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Adams also said the following in another publication: “Aberrations of the faith found in such movements as Sonship should be pointed out and rejected. These movements – both large and small – constantly plague the church” (Jay E. Adams, “Hope for the New Millenium,” Timeless Texts, Woodruff, SC, 2000, p.44).
A cursory observation of statements made at the 2010 T4G conference would easily identify Gospel Sanctification (the supposed “unadjusted gospel”) with Sonship Theology. Furthermore, many should be wary of the “unadjusted” gospel’s unorthodox phraseology: repentance is now “deep repentance”; obedience is now “new obedience”; church discipline is now “redemptive church discipline”; and progressive sanctification is really “progressive justification.”
There is a controversy concerning the influx of Calvinism into the SBC, and rightfully so because the soundness of a doctrine is often determined by where it ends up, and in this case, “New Calvinism.” New Calvinist seem to be in a contest to see who can devise the newest / profound angle on this doctrine. Recently, Tim Keller suggested that a sound profession of faith must include “repentance from good works.” Constantly insinuated by others aforementioned, but specifically stated by Paul David Tripp, is the idea of the total depravity of the saints. He plainly states in How People Change that Christians remain spiritually dead. And, ”When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” John Piper has stated that he went on his recent sabbatical to eliminate several different “species of idols” that he discovered in his heart, and mentioned Tim Keller and Paul Tripp as being knowledgeable about these things. In How People Change, Tripp states that these idols of the heart can be discovered by asking ourselves “x-ray questions.”
Dr. Mohler, is this what Southern Baptist believe? That we grow spiritually by reciting the gospel to ourselves everyday? That every verse in the Bible is about justification? That Christians are totally depraved? That we should go idol hunting in our hearts using x-ray questions? That sanctification is by faith alone? And not previously mentioned: that colaboring with God in sanctification is a false gospel because “any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination”? Like Tullian Tchividjian, should we endeavor to be accused of teaching antinomianism for the purpose of accreditation regarding the “true gospel”? Should we practice redemptive church discipline which often results in the excommunication of Christians for non-attendance and not tithing?
I tell you the truth Dr. Mohler, at times I wake up in the morning and wonder if this is all a dream. After all, you are, according to some, the “reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the U.S.” So, obviously, it’s difficult for me to believe all of this is going on. I know some say that the SBC is on life support, but Dr. Kevorkian in the form of New Calvinism is not the answer. I am asking you to stand for the truth, or publicly state that you believe this doctrine without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17),
Paul M. Dohse
My Reply to Frank Turk’s Reply
Frank, Though I posted my note to you on my blog, your reply will be kept confidential unless you give permission otherwise. I found your reply gracious and with a spirit worth pondering. That's why I am going to share my heart with you on this in no uncertain terms. The reason is because I, at this time, do not share your patience with Horton, TT, DA Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller, et al. I believe they are fostering a doctrine that was conceived by the late Jack Miller (Prof of practical theology at Westminster Theological Seminary) some 30 years ago that was known as "Sonship Theology." Jay Adams wrote an apology against it (a book published by Timeless Texts in 1996). Though Horton and others have tweaked it to some extent, the doctrine is virtually identical to what they teach, and many of these men attribute the teaching to him directly (Jack Miller) while others were mentored by him. I also believe that these men think synergistic sanctification is a false gospel and that they are on the cutting edge of a new reformation, with their arrogance and visions of grandeur following. The doctrine is a radical departure from orthodoxy: repentance is now "deep repentance," obedience is now "new obedience," church discipline is now "redemptive church discipline," and progressive sanctification is really progressive justification. And unfortunately, as I am sure you already suspect, I have personal life experience with how this doctrine is effecting (trashing) the lives of many Christians. Its ill effect on biblical counseling is also cause for major concern. Sorry Frank, I think these men are dangerous and I think they need to be exposed. Perhaps they mean well, but the results are the same regardless. Thank you for your kind response and your prayer that God will be with me. Paul Dohse.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment