Often Asked By Those Looking For a Church: How Do I Know If It Is New Calvinist Or Not? Important Addendum
Originally published February 7, 2012
There has been an important development for the answering of this question. Specifically, how a pastor interprets Romans 8:30 will determine whether he is New Calvinist, or not New Calvinist. This is best explained by using an excerpt from another recent post, and then I will repost the original article afterward.
As many know, especially my wife, I have spent almost five years researching the present-day New Calvinism movement. The movement has its roots in the Progressive Adventist movement fathered by Robert Brinsmead. The magnum opus of that movement was their interpretation of Romans 8:30. I will pause now and quote an individual who witnessed that remarkable movement firsthand:
In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
“The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ” (Martin L. Carey: Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening )
Brinsmead further articulated this magnum opus in the theological journal, Present Truth:
Then in the golden chain of salvation, Romans 8:30, justification spans our Christian life all the way from calling or conversion to glorification: “Whom He called, them He justified; whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Here justification, our standing before God, is coterminous with sanctification, our being conformed to the image of God’s Son, in Romans 8:29. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 the apostle mentions Christ as our righteousness or justification before he names Him as our sanctification. But in 1 Corinthians 6:11 the order is reversed: “You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Accordingly, Luther taught that to accept justification by faith in Christ is our whole work for the whole Christian life. We never learn this too well. For the forgiveness of sins is a continuous divine work until we die. Christ saves us perpetually (Luther’s Works, American ed. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955- ), Vol.34, pp.164, 167, 190) [Present Truth: volume 25, pages 11,12].
Now, the term, “golden chain of salvation” did not originate with Brinsmead, but when that term was used by theologians of old, it doesn’t seem to be in reference to Romans 8:30. The term seems to have a contemporary meaning when associated with Romans 8:30, and that is how it will be used in this post. Furthermore, Brinsmead attributes the magnum opus of Progressive Adventism to Martin Luther, and Carey attributes it to Brinsmead who again, states that he learned it from the writings of Luther.
But the need for further research aside, this post will focus on the what. And the what is the following:
[1] Brinsmead’s interpretation of Romans 8:30 combines justification and sanctification, and perpetuates the need for a just standing before God until glorification.
[2] And the need for a progressive justification until glorification, ie.,“Christ saves us perpetually.”
[3] And sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because it is “coterminous” with Justification. “Conterminous” means, 1. having the same border or covering the same Area 2. being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
[4] This Romans 8:30 golden chain can be definitively traced throughout the New Calvinism community as a single mainframe that holds the doctrine together and determines its modus operandi.
[5] The Romans 8:30 golden chain manifests itself as, Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Christian Hedonism which all dwell in the community of New Calvinism.
Hence, New Calvinists can run, but they can’t hide—their interpretation of Romans 8:30 identifies them. And it also identifies what they will teach, and how they will counsel.
The Two Romans 8:30 and Their Gospels
Therefore, one version of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are the same, and justification is perpetual till glorification. The second interpretation of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are completely separate; and justification is a finished work that makes sanctification possible, but does not directly power it. This position would hold that sanctification is powered by regeneration, and not justification. Hence, Romans 8:30 is missing sanctification because justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification.
These are two completely different gospels. One is monergistic substitutionary sanctification, and the other is monergistic justification and synergistic sanctification. How the gospel is presented from each of these different viewpoints must necessarily be radically different. Moreover, counseling is necessarily, and radically different as well.
New Calvinism is not only dangerous to one’s soul, it is very subtle, and its proponents are deliberately covert. A post on what to look for is overdue, and my thanks to the reader who wrote and reminded me of this need. First, know this: in our day, New Calvinist churches will be the rule and not the exception. When you visit a church, assume that it is in the process of being taken over by New Calvinists, or has been in that camp completely for a period of time. Churches that have been solidly New Calvinist for a number of years will have cult-like characteristics.
Now, let me first begin my list by specifically answering the readers question and then I will expand from there: “….and would like to have a few questions to ask a Pastor to be able to know for sure if he is or is not in the NC camp by how the questions are answered. At the top of your head what questions would you recommend be asked that would be very telling?”
1) The biggie: “What hermeneutic do you use when you are preaching? Do you use the grammatical historical hermeneutic, or the redemptive historical hermeneutic?” Whether the pastor is NC or not, a deer in the headlight look will follow because most parishioners of our day do not know any theology. Think about it for a moment. These are two very different ways of approaching the Bible with the results being radically different; but yet, 99% of the parishioners out there have no idea which one their pastor uses.
GHH seeks to be exegetic; all ideas about everything are drawn from the text. RHH has an eisegetic approach; the sole purpose of the Bible is to gain a deeper understanding of Christ. It is sometimes called the “Chrstocentric” hermeneutic.
If the pastor admits that he is RHH, he is a NC. If he becomes aloof, for example; “Well, why don’t you come and see what we are about at one of our services, and then if you still want to talk about theology, we can do that” (by the way, that’s an actual quote from a pastor in response to my question concerning his hermeneutics), he is suspect. If he claims to be both, he is also suspect. If he is NC, he will know the very second you asked that question that he does not want you in his church.
2) Ask him who his favorite teachers are (you may want to word the question in a different way). If aloofness follows, he is suspect. If his favorite teachers are the likes of John Piper et al, he is either undiscerning or NC. In other words, he’s suspect.
3) You can ask him about his view on obedience, but you have to ask it this way in order not to be roper-doped: “Does all legitimate obedience and duty come out of a deeper understanding of our salvation? And when it does, is it a ‘mere natural flow?’”
4) “Do you believe that we are sanctified (set apart) by contemplating the gospel that saved us, or colaboring with the Holy Spirit in applying the word to our life.”
Bottom line: a skilled NC pastor can get around all of these questions except question number one. Even then, he can claim that he uses both hermeneutics.
Things to Look For
5) Is everything going on in the church about the gospel and Jesus? Is all of the music about redemption? Are all the messages about salvation, even though it’s a Christian setting? Is God the Father and the Holy Spirit rarely mentioned?
6) Another biggie: The missing transition communication technique in teaching and conversation. Like number one, this is huge. A message will begin with the subject of our Christian walk, but then will move into the subject of salvation without a transition in subject, as if the two are the same thing. Really, number one and number six are the most significant answers to the reader’s question.
7) The either/or communication technique, or the missing option C communication technique. The classic example is this prayer I heard spoken by a New Calvinist elder: “Lord, forgive us for obeying you in our own efforts.” The prayer insinuates that it’s either all of our effort, or all of something else that we don’t need forgiveness for. New Calvinists use this communication technique over a wide spectrum of teachings.
The Danger Zone
8.) Don’t forget, New Calvinist elders believe they have authority over you if you are a professing Christian and you are in their neck of the woods. Never, never, never, never meet with an elder or a group of elders ALONE. Never. And document everything. If you find yourself trying to ascertain where a church is doctrinally, and things are getting uncomfortable—that’s a New Calvinist church, or a cult, one or the other. Also, in this type of situation in a NC church, they consider these meetings to be steps of Matthew 18. They also consider any type of formal or informal counseling to be part of the discipline process. Regardless of whether you are a member or not, they will formally excommunicate you from the church universal in a Sunday morning service. And by the way, you have no legal grounds for a lawsuit in any state. Please, please, avoid these situations.
9) Watch for signs of exclusiveness; such as, “We preach the scandalous gospel,” ect. Or, “We teach this, as opposed to the ‘vast majority’ of other Christian churches.” “This is what makes us unique.” If you hear verbiage like this, gather your family and run for the nearest exit door. And don’t look back.
10) Watch out for love bombing. An overemphasis on love usually replaces things that are missing—like TRUTH! True loving relationships, even among Christians, are developed over time.
Also, in a NC church, if you are thought to be discerning, you may be approached by an elder with an unsolicited offer to “disciple” you on a weekly basis. This is more than likely for the purpose of neutralizing you as a threat. In many NC churches, this is considered counseling/discipline whether you are aware of it or not. It is known as “redemptive church discipline.” The goal is to bring you to a “redemptive” view of sanctification.
paul
Why Non-Institutional “Church Discipline” is Very Unmessy
In most states, to tell someone under threat of public humiliation that they can’t do something legal, such as vacating church membership, is a criminal act. This is especially true of the institutional church.
Why? Because the institutional church has its roots in Europe where church states were common. In many cases, church membership was mandatory. Keep in mind; in many Reformed churches the Calvin Institutes are the standard of polity, but it was written under the auspices of and in context of a church state.
Hence, institutional “church disciple” often conflicts with laws in a free society. This is why institutional churches spend millions of dollars each year covering their sanctified rumps in regard to this issue…and it is money spent for no good reason at all.
First of all, the legal problems begin with orthodoxy that calls for a “tell it to the church” for purposes of shunning and declaring the person an unbeliever. The whole declaring people unbelievers thing goes back to the orthodoxy of Calvin’s “Power of the Keys.” This is the belief that whatever Reformed elders proclaim on earth will be true in heaven. Basically, even if you are saved, if an elder wants to unsave you, heaven is bound by his authority. The Reformed can throw their little temper tantrums in denial if they want to, but this is a fact, and many who read here at PPT can bring their own testimonies to bear on that. Besides, the Calvin Institutes stake this claim in no uncertain terms.
Secondly, “tell it to the church” was NEVER meant to be an announcement to the congregation that the elders have decided to “excommunicate” a certain person. It is a call to the whole assembly to get involved in the situation so that EVERBODY is accountable and the true facts of the matter are totally out in the open. In fact, the offended and the first two witnesses may have to stand alone against the whole assembly in some cases:
“Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”
Thirdly, we see “the Lord’s discipline” in the Bible, and we see self-discipline in the Bible, but where is “church discipline”? Answer: NOWHERE. The church does not discipline, assemblies are a matter of voluntary fellowship, period. If the whole assembly cannot convince the offender to make things right, they simply refuse to fellowship with the offender until he/she repents—it’s just that simple.
Fourthly, per the usual, this should all be interpreted through the prism of home fellowships, not the institutional church with all its necessary legal drama. Said offender is no longer welcome in the home of the host where the meetings take place. In extreme cases, restraining orders in regard to an institution are very messy, but not when it comes to private homes.
In addition, if the home fellowship wrongly stands with the offender for various immature reasons, guess what? The three merely go off and start their own home fellowship. Who is with them?
See how simple this all is? It’s the institution that complicates all of this.
Lastly, it’s not a matter of humiliating someone publically via the institution’s public building—that obviously beckons a host of legal issues. It is a simple matter of discontinuing fellowship until the offender makes things right.
Moreover, in regard to a network of home fellowships in a given geography, a wronged person could appeal to other fellowships. Where there can be no agreement, you may have an actual split in networks as well. But the whole thing is based on fellowship—not authority or a public institution where things become legal issues.
paul
The Christian Serf
Originally published February 12, 2014
One reason, among many, that I delight in not being a part of the institutional church is I am no longer a serf to American Christian academia. Did I really “tithe” to God in the past? No, I paid taxes to a multi-billion dollar corporation that is in the salvation by membership business. As an elder of a fairly large Evangelical church that was on the cutting edge of doctrinal conservatism, I created somewhat of a stir by recommending that the church start a benevolence fund. I found these types of confrontations surreal and confusing, until I grew up. But even before I grew up, I at least knew that recommending a widows list would be dead on arrival. What jumps out of the passages like an A-Bomb when you read the Bible for yourself is the fact that all giving is need-based, not institutional based.
Like government institutions, there is a separate standard for leaders and serfs. Christians often find themselves in double serfism accordingly, and this is completely unnecessary. Besides, it hinders real ministry. Like government—like church, and this week we have an excellent example accordingly.
The Obamas, for some time, have been attempting to legislate what Americans eat, for our own good of course. Specifically, the First Lady has been in charge of two programs that dictate what we are allowed to feed our children. However, TPNN reports that an upcoming White House dinner boasts a menu that has 1000 more calories than a meal one can order from an establishment of Big Fast Food which is among many capitalistic evils like Big Oil.
That’s the point: the standard is always double. You see, the enlightened can handle life-stuff like food and guns, but such things must be kept from the great unwashed masses because of our unrestrained appetites. This is a simple metaphysical construct that was up and running as soon as God blocked entry back into the garden with the baddest angel in the universe. This herd mentality eventually led to the flood. Even then, God had to later do the confusion of languages thing because men insist on letting others think for them and following bad ideas.
Like government—like church. What do we do when we want to “start a ministry”? We ask the elders for permission. While attending the aforementioned church, still as an elder, I was contacted by an inner city church that simply wanted us to come in and take them over. I thought it was an excellent opportunity for many in our church to serve God in the inner city. The opportunity met with stiff resistance. One man told me that he wouldn’t dream of participating in such a ministry without at least a Master’s degree. Others said that our church already supported a ministry that did the same kind of inner city work. By accepting the offer, we would have been usurping them in some way.
We don’t think of the institutional church as something that hinders ministry because of its huge programs and infrastructure, but let me remind you that those programs are limited to institutionally approved workers while the primary expectation of the Christian serf is to work a job, keep their mouth shut, and tithe at least 10%. In fact, many churches are disciplining members for not tithing. And why is there so much fear among Christians in regard to “church discipline”? Obviously, Christian serfs believe that the institutional church has the authority to declare them unbelievers. Scoff at membership by salvation if you must, but it is clearly how the institutional church functions.
And what is more obvious than the double standard? In the midst of the “church discipline” craze, where is 1Timothy 5:20?
But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
Members being disciplined/excommunicated is an epidemic while the former is rarer than fine gold; also, rampant fear of elders is ever so evident and can only be chalked up to the belief that salvation is found in the institutional church.
Christian serfism is a plague that can only be cured by a New Testament model of worship.
What Does Gospel Sanctification “Look Like” in Counseling?
So, in regard to those who propagate Gospel Sanctification, how do they counsel? Well, I don’t think anything presents a better “word picture” (quotations hereafter not necessarily from Baldwin’s article) than Bill Baldwin’s piece written in 1996. By the way, I have begun this post with some illustrative Gospel Sanctification lingo which replaces as many verbs with nouns as possible for fear that counselees will get the idea that they should actually do something about their problem. “How,” or “do” is always replaced with what we see Jesus doing instead of us. Hence, “what does that look like?” And, we don’t instruct, we “make word pictures.” I have received feedback from one counselee who informed me that he was counseled by “visual diagrams” of his life drawn by the counselor. And the counselor wasn’t a New Age fruit ball, he is a certified biblical counselor and on the staff of a training center.
In the following article written by Baldwin, look for the following Gospel Sanctification tenets:
1. Sanctification is Justification (salvation / gospel) continually reapplied to life. Instruction is out, “preaching the gospel to ourselves everyday” is in.
2. The role of the Law is exactly the same in sanctification as it is in justification. Hence, GS counselors don’t use the Law (God’s word) for instruction, but rather use it as a school master to continually lead the counselee back to Christ because we are unable to keep the Law, Christ must obey for us. Therefore, the sole purpose of Scripture is to “show forth more Jesus,” not anything Jesus would instruct us to do.
3. Look for the dissing of enablement, or the idea that God enables us to obey. Gospel Sanctification rejects this idea.
4. Note the use of the Law to supposedly drive the counselee (Christian) to the conclusion that he/she can’t keep the Law. This is a favorite technique used by GS counselors, especially in church discipline situations (which Baldwin does not address, but is applicable to points I would like to make). GS church discipline (“redemptive church discipline”) combines church discipline with counseling and primarily seeks to teach the subject to be “gospel driven,” seeing the actual purpose for the church discipline as being beside the point. The counseling will move closer and closer to excommunication as the counselee continues to supposedly “cling to the Law.” What the counselor will do is demand that the counselee obey a long list of stringent imperatives, and as the counselee fails, he/she is moved to the next step of church discipline (and closer to excommunication). This is designed to drive the counselee to “despair,” especially as he/she sees excommunication looming on the horizon. The counselor will then show them the “new way” of living by the gospel. I have seen this mode of operation practiced by counselors firsthand.
5. Note that biblical imperatives are not for us to obey, but rather a “fruit catalog” to show us whether it is Jesus performing the works or us trying to do it in our “own efforts.”
6. Notice John Piper’s Christian Hedonism; when Jesus is obeying for us, we will always obey without hesitation and full of joy. When our obedience is joyless and grudging, we are obeying by “our own efforts.”
One last note before I present the article. GS proponents hate this article because Baldwin is completely forthright regarding how GS applies to counseling. Without further ado, here is the article:
Sanctification, Counseling, and the Gospel
by Bill Baldwin 8-2-96
Counselling must stimulate faith so that behavior flows from a redeemed heart by the power of the Holy Spirit. Often enough, people make this reply to that statement: “We’re presupposing faith, and a regenerate heart and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible for the counselee to benefit from counselling without these things.” And we end up frustrated. They are frustrated because they think I’m accusing them of not doing everything at once. After all, there are good books already available on faith and the heart (the Puritans rambled on forever on that one) and the Holy Spirit. Now we need a book on counseling and if we repeat all the previous work we’ll be duplicating the efforts of others and getting nowhere. And I’m frustrated because I don’t believe my point has been understood.
Let me make that point briefly and then expound on it. It is possible to have a regenerate heart of faith and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and to produce actions that do not proceed therefrom. We do it every day. It is called sin. It is therefore essential that the counselor evoke the faith, stimulate the heart, and teach the counselee thereby to desire and receive the power of the Holy Spirit. Counselling cannot be about anything if it is not about faith and the heart and the Spirit of God.
Here is that same response in a longer form:
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. 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.
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 held out in Scripture.
The human mind, observed Calvin, is an idol factory. And our favorite idol stares back at us from the mirror each morning. When we are told to change our behavior, that idol is our first, most natural, and often unconscious recourse. The way of the gospel is strange, uncertain, and involved. Just tell me what to do and I’ll do it.
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. The majority of my life is spent in self-idolatry. Again and again I find myself feeling and acting as though I am my own, as though I have the power to do what I choose to, as though I live and move and have my being within myself rather than in God through Christ. I say, “Tomorrow, I will do such and such” without a hint of “Lord willing” in my mind. Unconsciously I have stopped relying on another for everything I do. I have left the way of faith and any other way is sin.
Am I so sinful then? Indeed, in my flesh — utterly sinful. But I have been called to walk not in the flesh but in the Spirit. Not by works but by faith. Have I then made so little progress in walking in the Spirit that, every time I relax my vigilance I begin to walk in the flesh? Every time my renewed mind falls asleep it wakes to find me in sin? Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death? I praise God and cling to Christ for in Christ even now I have no condemnation, and in that sweet assurance I look forward to the resurrection of this body, gloriously transformed at last to Christlike perfection.
Meanwhile I wrestle with temptation; I fall into sin but am not overcome. He who died for me now restores me and sets me on the path of life — Christ, the Way — again.
What do I learn about counselling from these truths? Simply this: When a counselee comes to me with a problem of sin, he has been catering to his flesh and — if he has tried to combat the sin at all — has been combatting the sin in the strength of his flesh. Hence his failure and his need. If I counsel such a man by giving him “practical” steps to change his behavior, he will certainly attempt those steps in the strength of his own flesh. He has already demonstrated that this is the usual way he deals with this area of his life — at least lately. Will he change now?
We cannot, we must not, “presuppose” the presence of faith and a regenerate heart and the Holy Spirit. What if you were a farmer contemplating a tree that bears little fruit, and much of it bad? Would you say, “I assume the roots are fine and I assume the soil’s good and I assume it’s getting enough water” and look for the problem elsewhere? The condition of the fruit tells you you must examine the roots and the soil. So here. A counselee bearing bad fruit in a certain area must be brought back to the root of Christ and the soil of the gospel and the rain of grace. We do not assume the presence of Christ, we drive the counselee to Christ by the law. We do not assume the presence of faith (for faith is either absent of weak); we stimulate faith by the gospel. We do not assume the presence of love for God and neighbor, we evoke that love by telling him of God’s love for him — not to guilt trip him into obedience but that his heart may burst with joy and a desire to be conformed to the image of Christ and to love with the love of Christ.
But what if the gospel doesn’t work? We expound the gospel but it fails to motivate and empower the counselee to love and good deeds? The question seems despairing if not outright blasphemous. For when we speak of the gospel, we speak of the redeeming work of Christ in his incarnation, perfect life, atoning death, burial, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of power whence he sends forth the Holy Spirit to equip us for every good work. If that “doesn’t work” we have no hope.
But the question is legitimate. What if the gospel does not reignite a spark of faith in the counselee so that he forsakes his sin, clings to Christ, stands in awe of his salvation, and goes forth to love and serve the Lord? What if the gospel doesn’t work? Then take him to the law.
Let me be completely clear. I do not say “take him to the law” so that the law may motivate him to do what is right. The law cannot. It was not created for that purpose and cannot be used for that purpose without producing pharisees and Judaizers. We must not cause the counselee to say, “The gospel wholly failed to motivate me to good works; but now that I see that God commands good works, I know that I must do them. And if I have no desire for good works, I will do them out of sheer, teeth-gritting obedience because God requires it of me.” Such obedience is wholly unacceptable to God. We must actively discourage the counselee from such thinking.
The counselor errs grossly if he uses the commands of God to motivate his counselee to an obedience born of the sheer force of his will.
A second error is like it but more subtle. The counselor may reason that the proper purpose of the law is to drive a man to Christ, but he turns Christ into a gimmick, a means by which the counselee may be enabled better to keep the law. The counselor has not fully understood the law and its demands and so the counselee misunderstands as well. The counselee hears the law and says “Yes, I want to do those things and I am sorry I haven’t been. Who will enable me to do them properly?” Such a man does not yet understand his own depravity. He desires merely to be enabled to keep the law rather than begging that the law might be kept and forgiveness obtained on his behalf. He asks “Where will I find the strength to keep the law?” rather than “Wretched man that I am! Who will free me from this body of death!” This man must be pried from the false Christ to which he clings and held closer to the fires of the law until he cries out, “I cannot keep it! Someone else must do it for me!”
This is as true in sanctification as in justification. We are justified by grace through faith in Christ. So are we sanctified. The law that first drove us to Christ again and again drives us back to him for repeated applications of his forgiveness and his righteousness.
The law must never drive us to desire to keep the law but that we should be freed from its shackles of condemnation. When we have been driven to Christ, when we have drunk deep of his salvation, our freedom from the law’s loud thunder, the glories that are laid up for us in heaven and in which we even now participate by faith. . . then we shall walk forth in newness of life. If we abide in Christ we will bear much fruit. We labor with counselees long and hard that they should walk by the Spirit. For we know that when they walk by the Spirit they will not carry out the desires of the flesh.
The law, stripped of its condemnation, will then describe the content of our behavior. And when we have questions in that regard as we walk by the Spirit, we may consult God’s standards to make sure that the new obedience we are gratefully bringing forth is not of our own devising.
But this is not the hardest or the most necessary part of counseling. Driving them to Christ by the law and teaching them to cling to Christ by faith must occupy most of our time. The nitty gritty “practical” concerns will largely take care of themselves if only we stick to this method.
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not saying the law isn’t useful as a pattern of the good works that flow from sanctification. It is. But that is not the use that Paul or the rest of Scripture harps on over and over. 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. And where they haven’t, take them back to Christ again that they may contemplate him in all his glorious perfection so that they may better understand what sort of God and man he was and is.
What if a man preaches the law as a pattern of the fruit of sanctification and reduces Christ as a means to producing that pattern? What will result? Nothing or worse than nothing.
Hold fast the head and the body will move. Abide in Christ and the fruit will come.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment