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.
Frank Turk’s Reply to Open Email: Cited with Permission
Paul -- Thanks for your note. There is one specific way in which my concern does not lead to calling Dr. Horton & Co. "antinomians" or those who "foster antinomians": by understanding that my concern is with their approach and not their confession. I think the problem is with their approach to the question of justification having the necessary consequence of sanctification. I am familiar with, and a fan of, Dr. Horton's books about the Gospel and about orthodoxy. I look forward to reading his new Systematic Theology. My concern is that when the WHI conducts discussions about the centrality of the Gospel and fails to close the discussion as Paul -always- did by disclaiming antinomianism and fruitlessness (Paul's approach was always to declare the centrality of the Gospel as the /cause/ of fruitfulness, with no excuse to the fruitless), their approach is flawed. In that, I think it also goes back to their intention to reform the church with the Gospel. They want to vanquish works-righteousness -- which is entirely right-minded. But if you eliminate the possibility of works-righteousness but /excuse fruitlessness as merely "unhealthy"/, you are not finishing the job. That's not defective theology: that's defective effort, a defective teaching method. It is unequivocal confessional language to say that those who are born again, those who are receivers of the Gospel, those who believe, must experience sanctification (-not- perfection)(cf. WCF XIII.1). To say -that- is a kind of works righteousness is to say that the reformed confessions advocate such a thing -- which I am certain you would never do. To the other quotes you have proffered here, I am not seeking to defend anyone else's statements in or out of context. I stand by my critique, and ask you to address it as I have presented it if I have not answered your concerns about it. God be with you, ~Frank
An Open Email to Frank Turk
Frank,
I saw your latest comment on WHI. You invited anybody that had questions to email you at this address frank@iturk.com. I may have misunderstood what you wrote in the comment, but it seems that you see the controversy at hand this way: “This is not a dire theological emergency.” Not that I think your original open letter was a definitive antinomian charge, as Horton apparently did, but I will ask the following question: how is progressive justification not antinomianism? How can there be any use of the law at all in sanctification if “the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us”? Many respected teachers of the past such as JC Ryle called the combining of justification and sanctification antinomianism. I believe antinomianism is a “theological emergency.”
That’s my question, now perhaps you will allow me a comment concerning this statement: “As the person now listed as probably worse than Torquemada when it comes to the Reformed blogsophere….” That might be because of the following: the logical conclusion of their theology, if not directly stated, would question your salvation. Certainly, they would be offended by some lost guy calling their theology into question!
Let’s see if that might be the case. When you got saved, did you remain in the gospel, or did you move on to “something else”? What’s the “something else”? Tullian Tchividjian says the something else is the following:
“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 ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it.”
So, the something else can be ANYTHING else but the gospel, which in this case is “deeper theological waters” as opposed to “move[ing] deeper into it” [the gospel]. If you do that (move on to something else), Michael Horton says you loose your sanctification AND your justification. Correct me if I’m wrong, but if we loose our justification, doesn’t that mean we’re lost? Here is what he said:
“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 depen- dent 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.”
Also, John Piper says that we (Christians) must make our battle (“our battle” must certainly pertain to sanctification) to only believe, not to perform as grounds for our justification (I thought we perform to please God and our justification is already settled, but I guess that’s just me). Here is what he said:
“All the good that God requires of the justified is the fruit of justification by faith alone, never the ground of justification. Let the battle of your life be there. The battle to believe. Not the battle to perform.”
Is that true? Is our only battle as Christians, a battle to believe?
Nevertheless, if you move deeper into the gospel everyday and haven’t moved on to anything else – your in good standing with the guys at WHI. And saved to boot!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments