Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 1
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful; it’s about time antinomians of our day have to answer the charge. But have you ever heard the theory by psychologist that serial criminals want to be caught? In regard to applying the same theory to the serial antinomians of our day, I have to think the theory has merit.
Consider what has happened this week. A writer for “Pyromaniacs,” a blog authored by Phil Johnson, (an associate of John MacArthur Jr.), wrote a six-page open letter to Micheal Horton and others at the “White Horse Inn,” another blog of the Reformed sort. Horton responded to the open letter by denying that he was an antinomian while defending another proponent of gospel sanctification / Sonship theology who had supposedly been accused as well by pastor Jason Hood, via an article Hood wrote in Christianity Today. A rough week for antinomians, supposedly.
But the fact that Horton responded to the open letter as if it was an accusation that he is antinomian – is surprising because it would take at least five attorneys to interpret the letter that way, if in fact it was an accusation of antinomianism to begin with; I certainly didn’t take it that way.
So why did Horton respond that way? See, it’s true; deep down, they want to get caught. Horton initially defended himself in the first paragraphs of his response, but then toyed with his “accuser” by dropping in clues as to what they should really be accusing him of: antinomianism based on his doctrine! After his defense, his suggested cure for antinomianism was “more gospel”(hint, hint). So after denying that he’s antinomian, he actually launched into a full-blown antinomian doctrine! I will dissect his response in part 2, but in essence, he said “more justification in sanctification.” I posed this question in the comment section and expect it will never get out of moderation purgatory:
“Dr Horton: or anyone else,
If we are sanctified by justification, and we don’t have a role in justification, how can we have a role in our sanctification? And if we can’t have a role in our sanctification, isn’t that antinomianism by default? I don’t have to obey / I can’t obey. What’s the difference?”
But it gets better. In the other article Horton complains about, Hood doesn’t accuse the new pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian (the late James D. Kennedy’s church) of antinomianism, but rather only complains that Tullian Tchividjian bragged about being an antinomian! See, again, Tchividjian is another example of a serial antinomian who wants to get caught; so he bragged about being an antinomian. However, it didn’t work.
Will the Keystone Discernment Police ever figure it out? Stay tuned. But meanwhile, here’s another clue for Team Pyro: you don’t need six pages – you only need six words; “How is progressive justification not antinomianism?
paul
Key to understanding Lame Evangelism is Matthew 28:18-20
Last week, my evangelist son-in-law stated it again in his going back to PR presentation: Christians could seem to care less about evangelism. Others would say there is no “seem[ingly]” about it; in fact, we don’t. I believe the key to understanding this reality (and the fix) is in one of the most noted evangelism verses in the Bible, Matthew 28:18-20;
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’”
Let’s look at this text in order. First, Christians these days are focused on “our identity in Christ.” This comes from postmodern concepts which stress the supposed importance of “knowing our identity.” Only problem is, in attempting to do that, we must first define who we think Christ is. Well, in the Holy Spirit’s evangelism verse, He speaks of Christ’s identity, not ours: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” And this must be a very important element because He immediately follows this statement with: “Therefore.” Christ has been given ALL authority in HEAVEN and EARTH. He is the absolute potentate of the universe and most certainly the absolute dictator-elect of planet Earth. He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords. That means He has authority, He is an authoritative God.
However, in our church culture, He is anything but that. He is our intimate, lovable boyfriend. As the number one contemporary Christian song of our time states it- it can’t be about authority, it has to be “more like falling in love.” And have you heard? John Piper says Christ is “the happy God” and primarily sees the world through “the lens of His happiness.”Also, it really doesn’t matter what our King says, no, but rather, “it’s who He is as a PERSON.” The thesis of one of the most popular Christian books of our time (“Crazy Love” by Francis Chan) propagates the idea that a real relationship with Christ is intrinsically tied to discovering who He is as a real person while being free from concern about anything Christ would command. You know, the kind of things Lord’s do; commandments and stuff like that. So obviously, when we are presenting Christ to the world, personal and cultural preferences may take precedent over anything in Scripture that may be perceived as our King’s mandate(s). Christ as Savior and happy boyfriend – Lord is optional.
This is the premise of all of my points here: The Holy Spirit empowers evangelism. My first point is; He won’t empower people who don’t even know who Christ is and how to act like it. Christ said that evangelism must be according to His AUTHORITY. No authority, no evangelism.
Secondly, our church culture cannot get it into their heads that Christ doesn’t want to save people, He wants to “make disciples.” To say that the “gospel“ has suffocated discipleship is an extreme understatement. Christ is looking for able followers / worshipers, not mere converts. The fact that Christians do not know how to take “the mind of Christ”(1Cor 2:16) and apply it to their lives is evident by the fact that they go to “experts” for their problems. Fact of the matter is, most Christians will tune into Oprah Winfrey for answers to life’s tough questions before they will go to their pastor, and for good reason, the pastor doesn’t have the answers and everybody knows it. If you want to know how many stones David picked up out of the brook (and the name of the brook) to slay Goliath, you go to your pastor. If you need answers to life’s difficult questions, you go to a spawn of Sigmund Freud. The word is out, Dr. Phil can save a marriage before most pastors will even get over the initial shock (or disdain) that their parishioner would even ask them how to do such a thing.
Furthermore, the world knows something that the church doesn’t know. Most people change via problems; and what they discover about those problems that come into their lives. “Oprah” is the most popular TV show of all human history, and its theme is life, and the problems thereof. It’s a how to show. Get over it; God is a problem centered counselor. (Adam, Cain, Job, etc., etc., etc., etc.,). Hence, a church I used to go to had twelve converts in one year through their biblical counseling program (back when they knew how). Keep in mind: evangelism is problem centered counseling that the whole world needs. Their lost – that’s a problem, and your the counselor (or should be) that has God’s solution to the problem.
In the Old Testament, two lepers who were thrown out of Jerusalem went back to the besieged city to inform them that they had discovered life-saving provisions. That’s what you do when you have information that can save people’s lives; you go and tell. Christians today have no motivation to tell because they really don’t see where the deeper knowledge of God makes a difference in their own lives. Get ’em saved and then send them to Oprah? Christians will find better things to do while pretending that being a Christian is really different.
That was the problem with the first gospel wave from about 1950 to 1980. “Bag ’em and tag ’em, then send ’em to Oprah. The second gospel wave (1980 to present) says: “The same gospel that saved you, also disciples (sanctifies) you.” Hence, we are all leaving church with the gospel coming out of our ears! The mantra of the second gospel wave says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Other spiritual brainiacs claim: “We never leave the gospel and supposedly move on to deeper / other things.” But this is in direct contradiction to Hebrews 6:1 which states: “Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation….” In fact, throughout the Scriptures, the gospel is spoken of being a “foundation” that we build on (1Cor 3:10-15 for example). The “gospel” is killing evangelism because immature Christians make lousy evangelist. In fact, the Holy Spirit will not use them.
Thirdly, Christ is not looking for lousy worshipers. He is looking for disciples who learn “all that I have commanded” (ie., about ALL areas of life). Consider the popular “worship” song, “It’s All About You” [Christ]. The following was suggested to me: “That’s an awesome worship song because worship is all about Christ.” My response: “NO it isn’t! Worship is not all about Christ. Again, Christ must, for lack of a better term, be “allowed” to TELL US who He is and what He wants! Christ said we must worship “in spirit and in truth.” Worship is far more than raising our hands in church and using a song to focus on the “person” of Christ. Worship is how we talk to our wife. Worship is what kind of job we do at work. The better the disciple, the better the worship, because the definition of a disciple is “teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” God is looking for true worshipers, and true worship is according to truth (John 4:23).
If God is not looking for lousy worshipers, neither is the Holy Spirit. A church that has a heavy focus on discipleship will find much cooperation and empowerment from the Spirit.
paul
“That’s Not True”: Phillip Cary’s Gospel Sanctification Statement
I can tell Susan will be a huge help on the second edition of “Another Gospel” which is an apology against Gospel Sanctification. Basically, the doctrine makes sanctification and justification the same thing. However, I never cease to be amazed at how difficult it is for Christians to get their mind around this doctrine and its ramifications. One reason is the fact that the following is true: both sanctification and justification share some of the same progressive elements, but GS makes them entirely synonymous which translates, for all practical purposes, into Antinomianism which has always been deemed heretical by evangelicals.
Susan seems to have a decent grasp on several issues spawned by GS, but like many, she is still working at putting it all together. Then it happened. We were at a basketball game and she picked up a book I had brought with me, opened it, and just started reading. Then, about a minute later, she said the following: “That’s not true.” I then inquired, “what isn’t true?” She pointed me to the Preface where Phillip Carey writes the following in “Good News for Anxious Christians”:
“Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe. I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives. We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.”
I then replied to her: “Honey, that’s Gospel Sanctification.” Ah, the power of concise statements, and it’s very unlikely this essay won’t be added to the book in revised form. First, most proponents of GS recognize that the doctrine is not orthodox. This can be seen in Cary’s admission via the first sentence: “Some folks may find it odd when I say Christians need the gospel, but this is something I firmly believe.” No Phillip, many of us find it odd, not just “some”. Like another advocate of GS said, “the vast majority” of Christians find it odd (Tullian Tchividjian). Another advocate, Paul David Tripp, described those who find it odd as “hordes of.” This is a characteristic of those who propagate GS – they think they are modern-day reformers. In fact, Michael Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” The arrogance that comes with this mentality lags not far behind.
Secondly, we see the GS tenet of justification not being a one time, final act of God in the following two sentences: “I don’t think you just accept Christ once in life, and then move on to figure out how to make real changes in your life that transform you. It’s hearing the gospel of Christ and receiving him in faith, over and over, that makes the real transformation in our lives.” Though advocates of GS deceptively refer to this as “progressive sanctification,” it’s really progressive justification which is totally unorthodox. Another example of this would be Paul Tripp’s belief that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” and not glorification. If you think it smacks of a daily re-saving / salvation, consider this comment made on Justin Taylor’s blog:
“It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins.”
Next, we see the GS tenet of sanctification by faith alone in this sentence: “ We become new people in Christ by faith alone…” Again, another tenet that is totally unorthodox. JC Ryle said:
“It thoroughly Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone justifies.’ But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say ‘faith alone sanctifies.’”
But, keep in mind, according to the GS doctrine, sanctification is justification.
Next, we see the tenet of “the imputed active obedience of Christ”( Another way advocates state IAOC is “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event”) in this sentence from the same aforementioned statement: “We become new people in Christ by faith alone, not by our good works or efforts or even our attempts to let God work in our lives.” So, if we can’t even let God enable us, who obeys? Jesus does, he obeys for us. This is also indicative of the GS tenet that Christians are still spiritually dead, and the only life in us is Christ while we remain “totally depraved,” and “enslaved” to sin. Obviously, if we are still totally depraved, we can’t obey, Jesus must obey for us. This tenet is propagated throughout “How People Change,” a book written by Paul Tripp.
Lastly, we see the GS proclamation that co-laboring with Christ in the sanctification process is a false gospel ( …”not by our good works”). Paul Tripp states this in no uncertain terms when he said that even the passive endeavor of changing our thinking to align with Scripture effectively “denies the work of Christ as Savior.” He has also described any effort of ours at all in the sanctification process as “Christless activism.” In fact, this is also Michael Horton’s thesis for his book “Christless Christianity.”
So there you have it. The tenets of GS: progressive justification (which excludes sanctification); sanctification by faith alone; the total depravity of the saints; the imputation of obedience (Christ obeys for us); and monergistic sanctification (the only true gospel).
The doctrine is propagated by many well known, supposedly mainline evangelical leaders of our day. Primarily, it boils down to being an antinomian, let go and let God theology. How the doctrine articulates the use of the gospel only in the sanctification process is another body of information.
paul
A Reader’s Fair Question: What are the Goals of Your Blog Regarding Gospel Sanctification?
Another interesting article, Paul.
These things you write keep leaving me wondering: how are you hoping to help the Evangelical community to stop going the wrong way and start going the right way? How many read your posts? What impact are your posts having? Finally, what are you doing outside of your posts to help? What, if anything, is effective?
Good questions Tad, I’m glad you asked:
The doctrine is the epitome of boiling a frog slowly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). Its covert nature is truly over the top. I sat under it for six years, and knew something didn’t seem right, but couldn’t put my finger on it. The doctrine’s framework has all the orthodox labels, but it redefines the essentials: justification, sanctification, repentance, obedience etc. It synthesizes justification and sanctification, changes repentance into “deep repentance,” and changes obedience into “new obedience.” Interestingly, though I’m sure its proponents don’t have regular meetings, there is a common thread among them: they avoid labels like the plague. It goes along with a deep-seated mentality that to accept a label is to acquiesce to some idea that their doctrine has not been the truth since the beginning.
So, this brings me to answering your first question. An enemy (the doctrine) cannot be defeated until you put a face on it. My primary goal right now is to label this hideous doctrine “Gospel Sanctification,” AND, to promote the idea that GS is, in fact, Antinomianism. Also interesting: when you talk to its proponents directly, and use that term, they don’t blink for a second – they know exactly what you are talking about, but they themselves never use the term, never. I might add that they fear the term and actually despise it for whatever reasons. A good example of this is the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa. When I called them, my first question was, “are you, and your school, proponents of Gospel Sanctification?” Shockingly, the representative of the school answered with a simple “yes.” Somewhat taken aback, I continued: “uh, in other words, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” His answer? “Yes.”
Let me interject some simplicity here. The gospel is the good news about justification / justification is monergistic / if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, sanctification is also monergistc / if sanctification is monergistic, that eliminates any use or application of the Law (or Scripture as a whole) in the sanctification process / that’s Antinomianism. By the way, I will soon be doing a series on the Antinomianoch School in Ames, Iowa.
Secondly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better and better at articulating this doctrine in understandable ways while embracing the daunting task of not looking like I’m “dissing the gospel,” a smoke screen that serves its proponents in grand fashion. Men such as Jay Adams even recognize the difficulty in articulating a description of this doctrine.
Thirdly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better equipped men (than me) off their asses to do something about this problem. I think my frustration may be reflected in the prior sentence. The doctrine is blatant Antinomianism invirtue of its premise, and needs to be stopped.
Fourthly, in regard to your first question, I intend to continually challenge better equipped teachers than I to stop loving their relationships with the who’s who of Evangelicalism more than the truth. I will also challenge them to love the truth more than the credibility of their diplomas. If their alma maters are propagating a false doctrine – love the truth more than your diploma.
Now in regard to your second question: I resolved in my heart long ago to do my best to write about this doctrine, no matter how many read my blog, until better equipped men address this problem. I have other goals in life; such as, I would like to go back to school and focus on counseling. With that said, the blog is experiencing a significant increase in readership (well more than double from the blogs conception in August of last year). But, it is what it is, and though the readership does number in the thousands, it just doesn’t matter, somebody has to speak-up any way they can.
Now your third question, “impact.” Five individuals have contacted me directly and said something like this: “Some time ago, our leadership seemed to be taking a different direction. I knew there was something wrong, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.” The blog, and my book, which was a huge struggle for a layman such as myself (my thanks to those who helped, especially my daughter, Heather), supplied them with an understanding of the doctrine’s major tenets and ramifications. I would also be remiss in not mentioning the fact that at least one church has reversed course in response to a parishioner confronting the leadership using materials from this blog. I think it’s a joke that my book is the only work out there on GS. As I work on the second addition which will focus more on the Antinomian aspect of GS, I continue to pray for others to respond as well. Regarding impact, there is some hint of a very capable person writing a book about the doctrine with my book as a “starting point.” That is what I would consider to be a significant impact.
Furthermore, I suspect many more people have made use of the blog that have not contacted me. From time to time, I will get a flurry of hits from a specific community for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that it is parishioners trolling the web trying to figure out what the heck is going on in their church. When this happens, they are getting my three years of research dropped in their lap. Amen, couldn’t make me happier.
Lastly, outside of my blog, I am working on the second edition of my book, which I lose money on, and I write letters to prominent Evangelical leaders asking them to not associate with proponents of GS because it lends credibility to the doctrine. For example, I will soon be writing a letter to Al Mohler. I am going to ask him as a fellow Southern Baptist to not attend, nor speak at the 2011 “Together for the Gospel” conference, or T4G. This conference always features the who’s who of Gospel Sanctification, and like the Antioch School, is a major promoter of the doctrine. At some point, all of the letters I have written will be posted on my blog as a testimony to the fact that many of these men really don’t care about the truth, and only listen to those who they see as on par with their own greatness.
Effectiveness? Don’t know, but this I do know: this doctrine will eventually produce something really stupid that people will have to take note of. Because the doctrine has no face yet, its direct cause in situations like Coral Ridge are going unnoticed, but that will change. Also, this doctrine has had very ill effects in the area of counseling, and I have warned certain organizations by letter accordingly. But nothing is being done because when it gets right down to it, they don’t care. What matters is who they play golf with, who writes the forwards in their books, and who’s lunching with them at Applebees during the next scheduled conference.
Blessings to you Tad, and btw, I am still working through the materials you have sent me and have some returns.
Your brother,
paul
Gospel-Driven Counseling Part 3: Clouds Without Water, and Nine Reasons Why “Redemptive” Counseling Can’t Help Troubled Christians
One of Jude’s depictions of false teachers was “clouds without water”(v. 12). Clouds give hope during times of need that the land will finally be revived by rain. Likewise, false teachers appear to offer hope in times of need, but they are actually without the substance to deliver on the promise. Counselors who use the redemptive approach to counseling are not necessarily false teachers, but their approach will not help people; their counseling is clouds without water.
In the first two parts, I used Bill Baldwin’s article published in 1996 to demonstrate how proponents of Gospel Sanctification approach counseling, and will do the same in this post as well. I will make my first point from the following excerpt:
“When I tell a man to change his behavior — and he realizes he must — it is the most natural thing in the world that he should do so by relying on his natural strength and the force of his will. It is therefore essential that the counselor solemnly warn him against such a course.”
Here, we observe two reasons in this statement why redemptive counseling will not help people. First, biblical counseling is not just about outward behavior, but also how counselees think. Biblical counseling calls for a change in thinking (ie., biblical thinking), and behavior also with both being curative. The redemptive approach lumps efforts to change thinking into the same category as behavioral change with the following nomenclature: “change by our own efforts” (which is supposedly wrong). Therefore, an emphasis on biblical thinking (which is very critical) will not be emphasized any more than outward behavior, which, as can be seen by Baldwin’s statement, is devalued to begin with. Another example of lumping biblical thinking together with “teeth gritting, pick yourself up by the bootstraps, legalistic, living by lists and do’s / don’ts,” ect., ect., is Paul David Tripp’s statement in “How People Change”:
“. . . and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior. Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to ‘think his thoughts’ and ‘act the way Jesus would act’”(p. 27, 2006 edn).
Notice also in Tripp’s statement that any effort to align our thoughts with the mind of Christ “omits….[the] work of Christ as Savior.” So, any effort on our part in the sanctification process is also likened to efforts to earn salvation. More on that later.
Secondly, as can be ascertained by Baldwin’s statement cited above, redemptive counseling makes a distinction between our work and the Spirit’s work in sanctification; when in fact, the two are seamless (the fruit of the Spirit is self control, Gal. 5:23). Counselors that suggest an either / or in the sanctification process reek havoc and confusion on counselees. To suggest that a counselee may not be walking in the Spirit even when he / she is obeying Scripture, because it may take effort, is to invite unhealthy introspection and mysticism into the counselee’s life. Besides, it’s a blatant contradiction to many verses such as Galatians 6:9. Jay Adams has stated the same concern this way:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (What is Sanctification, Institute for Nouthetic Counseling blog).
These are the first two reasons redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians – it discourages biblical thinking, and it equates our effort in sanctification with walking in the flesh.
Baldwin continues:
“He has heard the law and glibly said “I will do what it says.” He must know of the holiness of that law and the condemnation declared against all who try to commend themselves to God by lawkeeping. The law must drive him to the gospel of Christ.”
The third reason gospel-driven counseling will not help troubled Christians is because it distorts the biblical relationship of the Law to justification verses sanctification. In other words, redemptive counseling makes no distinction between the two and their relationship to the Law. This can be clearly seen in Baldwin’s above statement: the sole role of the Law is to lead the counselee back to the gospel as before he / she was saved, and not for the purpose of instruction as Paul clearly indicated in 2Timothy 3:16. Likewise, Michael Horton apes Baldwin when he wrote the following:
“The imperatives drive us [Christians (emphasis by underline mine)] to despair of self-rightousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only savior.”
Horton goes on to say in the same article (“Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living”) that an emphasis on deeds (ie., obedience) “leaves the sinner in the tattered garment of fig leaves rather than robed in the righteousness of Christ.” The suggestion by Horton is that efforts at good behavior removes the righteousness of Christ from the believers life.
This is the third reason gospel-centered counseling will not help Christians; because it disavows the instructive value of the Law in the believer’s life.
Baldwin’s next statement will be considered for my next points:
“And that gospel must long be dwelt upon that it may evoke faith — whether for the first time or as a stirring up and a repeated application of a faith already present. Only works that spring out of such a faith constitute the gospel obedience [emphasis mine] held out in Scripture.”
Hence, instead of learning more and more about how to apply God’s imperatives / wisdom to life, and doing so, which is key to a sound Christian life (Matthew 7:24-27), “faith” is supposedly evoked by a continual revisiting of the gospel. Notice that the primary goal is to evoke faith, via the gospel, just like in justification. Therefore, redemptive counseling is the extrapolation of justification moving forward with no recognition of a sanctification that involves a co-laboring of the believer. In essence, it is sanctification by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone, which, and don’t miss this: results in “gospel obedience.” What is gospel obedience? Simply put, it is often referred to as “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” In other words, when we continually revisit the gospel, the same monergistic results of justification are to be expected in sanctification, and therefore, both are a total work of Christ only. Said yet another way, Christ obeys for us. In case you think Baldwin is some isolated crack-pot, consider this quote by 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” (Christless Christianity, pg. 57).
The following statement by Tullian Tchividjian should also be considered:
“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. 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. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
Other extremes of this doctrine can be seen in Horton’s statement that, in essence, synergistic salvation is a false gospel. Therefore, since as Tullian Tchividian notes, a co-laboring in sanctification is the orthodox view among Evangelicals, redemptive counselors will begin their counseling relationship with most counselees by assuming they are lost, and will first focus on converting them to said doctrine. Furthermore, in marriage counseling, if one spouse accepts this doctrine and the other one doesn’t – the counseling will continue (erroneously) with a mixed marriage in view.
Another angle by Paul David Tripp can be added for good measure. On pages 171 and 172 ( starting in the last paragraph on page 171) of “How People Change,” Tripp propagates the idea that we are still spiritually dead as believers and are not an “improved version” of our old selves. Therefore, since Christ is the only one in us that is spiritually alive, we have unlimited potential because it is Christ in us that is doing everything (this, of course, is in blatant contradiction to Ephesians 4:20-24).
In conclusion on these points, the following are further reasons numbering four through eight of why redemptive counseling will not help troubled Christians:
4. It tells the counselee that sanctification is by faith alone in the same way that justification is by faith alone.
5. It tells the counselee that Christ obeys for us.
6. It replaces a deeper knowledge of God’s wisdom and its application to life with a mystical “deeper knowledge of the gospel.”
7. It often assumes that the counselee is not saved for erroneous reasons. This is obviously detrimental to a healthy and productive counseling process.
8. It will misinterpret marriages as mixed for erroneous reasons. This is also detrimental to productive marriage counseling.
Lastly, redemptive counseling presents the counselee with an erroneous picture of how sanctification is experienced. The counselee is told that when Christ is obeying for us, obedience will be experienced as a joyful, unconscious reaction. Note carefully what Baldwin says in the same article:
“If an act does not spring from a conscious exercise of faith stirred up by gospel truth, we can be almost certain the act does not spring unconsciously therefrom. And whatever is not of faith is sin….Give me a man who preaches the law with its terror and Christ with his sweetness and forgets to preach the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and what will result? In two months his parishioners will be breaking down his door begging to be told what behavior their renewed, bursting with joy, hearts may best produce. And when he tells them, they will be surprised (and he will not) to discover that by and large they have produced exactly that.”
Note, according to Baldwin (and likewise, others such as John Piper), true obedience is always joyful and unconscious, even to the point of obeying Scripture without first knowing what it says (because its not us obeying anyway). Should we teach troubled Christians these things? I think not. Besides, it makes a mockery of Matthew 26:37- 42. Obeying God can often be necessarily difficult for many reasons.
Gospel-driven counseling cannot, and will not help troubled Christians. Furthermore, evangelicals have a duty and responsibility to warn other Christians to stay clear of this counsel that promises to give hope, but cannot deliver. This theology and its counselors are clouds without water.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment