Submitted to the Committee on Resolutions for the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention
Resolution On Distinctions Between Justification And Sanctification
June 2011
WHEREAS, A major contribution to the spiritual weakness of many Protestant denominations has been erroneous teachings in regard to sanctification; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians are sanctified by the exact same means of justification only; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians should preach the Gospel of justification to themselves everyday for sanctification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that contemplation on the Gospel of justification alone is the primary duty for the Christian, and from that one duty, all other duties find life; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that a worshipful doxology resulting from a contemplation on justification always precedes obedience acceptable to God; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians need to be justified continually until glorification, and enablement to participate in sanctification has not been granted by God in any portion more than those who need to be justified; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that personal exertion by Christians in response to all that Christ has commanded in Scripture is works salvation.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention affirm Scriptural distinctions between justification and sanctification; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm these distinctions according to Scripture and those that are clearly evident in Article IV of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Concerning enablement in sanctification, Article IV (C) contains this statement as follows: “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”
Concerning justification as a one-time legal declaration by God, Article IV (B) contains the following statement: “Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we believe that the Scriptures are not for the sole purpose of contemplating justification only, but rather according to Article I of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement which contains the following in regard to the Scriptures: “It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm our belief in the biblical truth that Christians are new creatures in Jesus Christ, and therefore, we also agree with Article XV of the 1925 confession which contains this statement: “There is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and wicked”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm as true and biblical, any endeavor or teaching concerning sanctification that likens to these words written by JC Ryle: “In justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse”; and
BE IT THEREFORE FINALLY RESOLVED, That because of the aforementioned convictions commonly believed by Southern Baptists as described in these resolutions, that those who persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification, be deemed unfit as ministers or teachers of the Gospel.
Should Christian Doctrinal Debate Be Public?
I have taken a lot of heat lately over my public criticism of New Calvinism. Some arguments, for example, go something like this:
“I respect you working hard at something you so fiercely believe in but in the grand scheme of the Great Commission, do these arguments help or hurt the cause of Christ? Sparring between brothers in a good debate is one thing, but making a spectacle of Christianity is not a testament of the grace of God. It is dangerous to publicly call out other brothers.”
Though this comment was made in the same thread as those defending New Calvinist, that wasn’t the intent of this Christian—the intent was to simply pose the question for consideration. However, there was an element of New Calvinism that I wanted to post on that can be based on this question; so, let the New Calvinist themselves answer this question. Also, you can frame this post in regard to comments like the following as well: “Who are you to publicly criticize these great men of God?” Or: “How dare you slam God’s chosen men?” Or: “DA Carson is the greatest theological mind in recent history—who are you?”
Let me set the table. At the 2006 Together for the Gospel conference (T4G), New Calvinist presented an official statement on “the gospel.” T4G is a gargantuan organization (along with The Gospel Coalition) that promotes New Calvinism. The document was divided into three primary categories: “In the essentials unity…in the nonessentials, liberty…and in all things, charity.”
In the essentials unity? Many of the core leaders of T4G are Charismatics. In fact, a huge portion of the New Calvinist movement includes Sovereign Grace Ministries which is an organization founded on—get this: “Reformed Charismatics.” One of the T4G’s “Core four” is CJ Mahaney who is president of SGM. So, obviously, teaching that Christians don’t get all of the Holy Spirit when they are saved is not essential to the gospel. Hmmmm.
In the nonessentials, liberty? That would be anything and everything other than the four core elements of New Calvinism: sanctification by faith alone (sanctification by justification only), the total depravity of the saints, daily salvation, and Scripture as narrative only—not instruction. Please, please, don’t complain that these four tenets are not substantiated in this post; this blog is pregnant with direct quotations from New Calvinist that confirm these tenets. Also, indicative of the movement’s confusion, part of Article XVI states, “We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings.” Though I agree, what does that have to do with the essentials of the gospel? That’s more of an essential than Pneumatology? Not only that, Charismatics ordain women all the time! I might also add that Steve Camp had the following complaint in regard to the document: “In these eighteen articles there is no Scripture listed.”
In all things, Charity? Here, I finally get to the point: all things charity unless you’re an orthodox evangelical. Because of the shear mass of this movement and its immense media power; and in a twist of absurd irony, there has never been a time in redemptive history when orthodox Christianity has been more fustigated publicly by professing Christians. The best known proponents of the movement constantly accuse evangelicals at large of promoting a false gospel, and nothing has ever been more public. Furthermore, it boils down to nothing more than a call for mass division in the church. As a matter of fact, I was attending a church in Fort Wayne, Indiana that was loosing members to a New Calvinist church in the area, and the elders couldn’t figure out why. Not only that, the departing members seemed to be offended, and no wonder.
Though, again, several examples can be found on this blog, I will cite some examples:
Tullian Tchividjian: “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…..Fundamentalist smother the gospel in moralism.”
Paul Washer: [I don’t believe that] “even 15% of my Baptist brethren are saved….we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us [emphasis mine]. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is ‘the’ message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Michael Horton: “Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then 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. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” [in other words: if you don’t believe in sanctification by faith alone—your lost, and that would definitely be the vast majority of evangelicals].
Chad Bresson: “I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible [by using it for instruction and wisdom], that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And that is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.”
John Piper: “ You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel….I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation” [if you don’t preach the gospel to yourself everyday].
Comment on an article by Justin Taylor, The Gospel Coalition Blog: “It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification [salvation] occurs EACH [emphasis NOT mine] time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins [among the many other comments posted on this article including those by Justin Taylor and Chad Bresson—none disputed this comment / statement. In fact, Bresson supported it by indicating that Christ presently obeys for us].
Paul David Tripp: “I am deeply concerned that the gospel has been redefined in the contemporary church in a terribly significant way.”
Concerning the aforementioned question, I will answer it from the standpoint of this blog; when a massive movement calls on evangelicals to acknowledge that they have been sold a bill of goods concerning the gospel for the past several hundred years, and in a very public way, does one have any choice but to counter that publicly? I don’t think so. Can the ignoring of such a movement hinder the gospel? Absolutely.
paul
Why “Lawless” Equals “Heartless”
Foul doctrine always has consequences. One of the many unfortunate consequences seen in the “Gospel-Driven Life” movement is the merciless, cold-blooded behavior of its leaders and followers. I have counseled spouses who have begged their partners not to divorce them because the marriage “doesn’t look like the gospel.” I have looked into begging eyes pleading for me to explain how “elders” could counsel people to do things that plainly contradict the literal, plain sense of Scripture. Apparently, their broken hearts just didn’t understand that all Scripture must be seen in its “gospel context.”
I have seen the hostile takeover of churches and listened to the many testimonies; for example, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church where those who took over mercilessly trampled underfoot the memory and work of James D. Kennedy. Whether he was your cup of tea or not is beside the point. I used to attend an early morning Bible study with a group of men in which an “elder” of the Sonship variety attended. He had a reputation for being a very tender, loving, soft-spoken person. On more than one occasion, he shared his exasperation in regard to his terminally ill mother-in-law mourning the fact that she would not be around to see her grandchildren grow up. Stern-faced, he shared his disappointment that she was not rather rejoicing that she would soon be with the Lord. Apparently, she had a Grandchildren Idol.
I can’t help but to wonder if this is the result of GS’s devaluing of God’s law. Why do I say that? Well, observe what Christ said in Matthew, chapter four:
“At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.”
Recently, John MacArthur wrote a book entitled, “Slave” in which he presented the idea that a translation fraud has been perpetrated in the English Bible regarding the word slave. Even though his approach was passive (the book lacked the usual Mac life application), and more or less presented the picture minus detailed life application, he hasn’t been invited to a GS function since the book’s publication. Apparently, even the suggestion that we are in any way, shape, or form, slaves to Christ is more than the GS brain-trust can handle. Well, Mac needs to write another book about the same fraud being perpetrated in regard to the word translated “wickedness” (most translations, “iniquity”) in this passage. He might as well—he’s in the doghouse anyway.
The word is “anomia.” It’s “nomia” (law) with the particle “a” prefixed to it, or “anti-law.” It is were we get the English word, “antinomian.” Some translations have “lawlessness” or better yet, “without the law.” The idea is being a rejecter of God’s law, and has very little to do with governmental laws, if anything. Take note: in the latter days, love will “grow” cold BECAUSE of antinomianism. A cold heart doesn’t cause lawlessness—lawlessness CAUSES the heart to become cold. So much for, “ALL change is from the inside out” (of course, ANY real change is impossible without the indwelling Holy Spirit).
Will my theory hold water? “Because” is a conjunction showing cause—let’s look at a verse with a conjunction that shows contrast: “Their hearts are callous and unfeeling,
but I delight in your law” (Psalms 119:70). Hence, those who delight in God’s law are contrasted with those who don’t; the lawless have callous, unfeeling hearts. Also, the Psalmist didn’t just ask God for compassion, curiously, he asked God’s compassion as found in His law: “Your compassion is great, O LORD; preserve my life according to your laws” (Psalms 119:156).
A movement that devalues God’s law—what’s that look like? It looks like Sonship and Gospel Sanctification: merciless, cold, and uncompassionate.
paul
Chan, Carson, Piper, Tchividjian Versus the Holy Spirit On “Rules”
Here is what the brain-trust of Sonship theology says about “rules”:
Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
What the Holy Spirit says as translated by the foursome’s Bible of Choice, the ESV:
Psalm 18:22
For all his rules were before me, and his statutes I did not put away from me.
Psalm 19:9
the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether.
Psalm 89:30
If his children forsake my law and do not walk according to my rules,
Psalm 119:7
I will praise you with an upright heart, when I learn your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:13
With my lips I declare all the rules of your mouth.
Psalm 119:20
My soul is consumed with longing for your rules at all times.
Psalm 119:30
I have chosen the way of faithfulness; I set your rules before me.
Psalm 119:39
Turn away the reproach that I dread, for your rules are good.
Psalm 119:43
And take not the word of truth utterly out of my mouth, for my hope is in your rules.
Psalm 119:52
When I think of your rules from of old, I take comfort, O LORD.
Psalm 119:62
At midnight I rise to praise you, because of your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:75
I know, O LORD, that your rules are righteous, and that in faithfulness you have afflicted me.
Psalm 119:102
I do not turn aside from your rules, for you have taught me.
Psalm 119:106
I have sworn an oath and confirmed it, to keep your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:108
Accept my freewill offerings of praise, O LORD, and teach me your rules.
Psalm 119:137
Righteous are you, O LORD, and right are your rules.
Psalm 119:156
Great is your mercy, O LORD; give me life according to your rules.
Psalm 119:160
The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever.
Psalm 119:164
Seven times a day I praise you for your righteous rules.
Psalm 119:175
Let my soul live and praise you, and let your rules help me.
Psalm 147:20
He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his rules. Praise the LORD!
paul
Comment By “Anodos” Is Indicative Of Sonship’s Dark Spirit
All false doctrine has its consequences. It’s difficult to write about what one encounters personally with those who propagate Sonship Theology and its offspring, Gospel Sanctification, but a recent comment by “Anodos” on the Tchividjian post is telling. He commented as follows:
“The Pharisees had their doctrine nailed down – they had studied scriptures and worked on it for hundreds of years. Jesus was crucified over a doctrinal issue. The Pharisees’ understanding of that doctrine was correct, but they did not know their God even when He stood face to face with them.
Why?
You have your orthodoxy all worked out, but your spirit is the same as the Pharisee. The next time you stand face to face with Christ, the tables will be turned. It will be He who says, “I do not know you, depart from me you worker of iniquity.”
Repent. Humble yourself and admit that you might not know all that you think you know. Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He will come to those who are spiritually impoverished, to those who are broken hearted and mourn.
Jesus is not a fact. He is a person. Eternal life is not knowing about Jesus, it is knowing Jesus. Your entrance into heaven will not be based on your works or your doctrine, but on whether Jesus knows you. This is a relationship, not a quiz.”
This statement is very, very Sonshippy, and characteristic of the mentality among Sonship’s Koolaid drinking faithful. First, we see the misrepresentation of the Pharisees as a device for promoting their false doctrine. Supposedly, the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and had a laser focus on correct doctrine, but missed the whole point of salvation which has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with knowing Christ as a “person.” Only problem is—that’s not true.
Anodos’ contention that the Pharisees had Jesus crucified over correct doctrine is a classic GS proposition, but doesn’t square with what Scripture states. Just imagine how intimidating this is to those who are under it; your best intentions in regard to following the truth could result in you being a Pharisee without realizing it. Moreover, since a relationship with Christ has nothing to do with the truth (“Jesus is not a fact. He is a person”), you wouldn’t dare go to the Scriptures and make your own assessment because that is truth-based / doctrine oriented. Therefore, you must be able ascertain what the Scriptures are teaching you about Jesus’ personhood for relationship purposes, and not knowledge. Since you wouldn’t normally try that at home—yep, you guessed it—better depend on those who are really, really good with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic. Do you think that I am insinuating that GS doctrine (which is based on Jesus as a “person [a no-brainer]—not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” [Paul Tripp]) relegates GS followers to a Pope-like dependence on their leaders for understanding the Scriptures? Absolutely.
The fact is: the Pharisees were the sultans of false doctrine and lawlessness. All of the trials leading up to Jesus’ execution were completely unlawful. Jesus made it clear that they changed the law and replaced it with their traditions. In fact, Jesus accused them of nullifying the law and making it “void” (Matthew 15:16). Since law (Scripture: see Matthew 5:18) determines doctrine, the Pharisees didn’t have correct doctrine. Obviously.
Hence, the idea heard constantly among the GS crowd: those who form their beliefs from biblical facts make the same mistake the Pharisees supposedly made. I have heard this from GS leaders firsthand. Only the gospel, as seen in the Scriptures, is “Spirit”; “facts” are the “letter” of the law –not the Spirit. Therefore, supposedly, the “letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” and they cite 2Corinthians 3:6 accordingly. Can I emphasize enough how dangerous this teaching is?
Secondly, this is postmodern thought. The following are statements by John MacArthur Jr. in “Truth War” concerning the Emergent Church and Postmodern thought. See if you can detect the parallels between GS hermeneutics / Anodos’ comments, and what MacArthur writes as follows:
“Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility” (page 16).
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, emphasis added).
“Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture” (Page 16).
Quoting John Armstrong, a proponent of the Emerging Church: “Theology must be a humble human attempt to ‘hear him’ – never about rational [again, my emphasis] approaches to text” (page 21).
Thirdly, Anodos displays a common propensity among GS advocates to proclaim dissenters as unregenerate. Notice that Anodos, like most GS advocates, base this on my exegetical view of Scripture. Anodos might note in the verse that he uses to condemn me that the word for “iniquity” is “anomia” which means “anti-law” (negative article “a” and “nomia” [law]). That sounds more like the GS crowd than me.
Lastly, Anodos’ comment is indicative of GS/Sonship’s inadequacy in presenting the gospel. “Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you,” is not how one gets saved. I was involved in a situation where I was asked to counsel an individual who was living in unspeakable sin. Later, we became disassociated with each other when he started counseling with a GS / Sonship “elder.” Some time later, I was informed that the counselee spent hours on his knees begging God to save him, and to no avail. Why? Apparently, the counselee had been taught by the GS counselor that before he could be saved, God had to show him his salvation as a “treasure chest of joy.”
Anodos, that’s why you and your GS cohorts are wicked false teachers. And frankly, I don’t care if your names are Anodos, John Piper, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Paul Tripp, Francis Chan, etc, etc, etc. I don’t care how well any of you speak, how well you dress, how many followers you have, or even how good you smell. Your vile doctrine is ruining people’s lives and I will contend against it until God gives me my last breath.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments