One way of  knowing the validity of a ministry, and what it teaches, is where it ends up and what it produces. Christ himself said: “By their fruits you will know them.” This doesn’t just apply to errant teachers, a tree is always judged by its fruit. One of the things I love about being a Christian is how the Lord continually opens your eyes to truth as delivered once in the closed canon of Scripture. As a former rabid advocate of biblical counseling, I now have grave concerns about where it is going and what it produces.

As I have written in other articles, one particular red flag caused me to start thinking in 1998 and I have been cautiously observing ever since. What was the red flag? Simply this; while the church was barley absorbing the earthquake caused by two men of diverse theology, Jay Adams and Dave Hunt, here came the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation [CCEF], saying that both of them were wrong. There is no doubt, the American church had relinquished the authority of scripture to Sigmund Freud [ It is very important to note that this was not taking place in countries were the church does not have access to such temptations]. Though Jay Adams was on the scene making waves before Dave Hunt concerning so-called “Christian Psychology,” Dave Hunt was really the one who broke the barriers down, making a wide road to Jay Adams and his objective, biblical alternative to the integration of Freudian Depth Psychology with the PURE milk of the word. Look, when you have one huge reformation going on, and someone comes in saying that they have one also; “Hey! not them, us,” something just didn’t smell right. As I have observed the debate over the years, and where it has all ended up, I hear Ozzy Osborne singing “Crazy Train” in the background.

In today’s American church culture, one sits in stupefied bewilderment as you look at the plain sense of Scripture in comparison to what the theological rock stars of our age are teaching and propagating. How did this happen? Simple; eisegesis verses exegesis, and the capital city of the Eisegesis kingdom is CCEF, and its reining king is David Powlison. As the most recognized leader in the CCEF organization [the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary], he passionately proclaims the sufficiency and final authority of God’s word in counseling, but I have a few questions. My questions come from an interview posted on the “Nine Marks” blog; comments by Powlison that are indicative of his counseling philosophy and often repeated by him:

http://www.9marks.org/CC/article/0,,PTID314526%7CCHID598016%7CCIID2448362,00.html

He is quoted as follows:

“The church forgets things. The church rediscovers things. But when it rediscovers something, it’s different because it’s always in a different socio-cultural-historical moment, and different forces are at work.”

What church is he talking about? Christ said that he would build his church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I assume that Powlison isn’t speaking for the whole church and all its history. However, the bigger question is how Powlison thinks that truth is rediscovered. But first, the idea that the truth, once rediscovered, is “different” because of the “socio-cultural-historical moment,” gives me serious pause. What in the Ozzie Osborne does that mean!? The apostle Peter addressed his primary concern in regard to what Christians might forget. As a matter of fact, because he knew his departure was near, it was the one teaching that he was emphasizing that he did not want them to forget. If they didn’t forget that teaching, it would enable them to have a “rich” entry into the kingdom of Heaven [2Peter 1:1-16]. A “rich” entry into the kingdom of Heaven? Sounds pretty good to me! If one is fearful of what the church may have forgotten, they should look where the Bereans looked to hold Paul’s [the apostle] feet to the fire; the Scriptures. By the way, If CCEF would focus on Scripture to determine what might be forgotten instead of past and present philosophers of every stripe, they may be reminded of the importance of eschatology in regard to change. Also, in regard to some concern over the “socio-cultural-historical moment,” the apostle Paul and the Hebrew writer, both cited Old Testament scripture without any additional reference to validate its New Testament application, saying the very purpose of the prior writings [2-4 thousand years beforehand in some cases] were for that present-day teaching.

But it is clear from many of his writings that Powlison believes the study of general revelation is critical to a correct understanding of scripture and it’s application. By general revelation, I mean anything that “God might have shown other people.” Powlison’s concept of “spoiling the Egyptians” is well documented, and I am not going to expound on it here. Suffice to say that in the same article mentioned above, he says the following:

“Caring for the soul, which we try to do in biblical counseling, is not new. Two of the great pioneers in church history would be Augustine and Gregory the Great. Even secular people will credit Augustine’s Confessions as pioneering the idea that there is an inner life. Augustine did an unsurpassed job of tearing apart the various ways in which people’s desires become disordered.”

And:

“Gregory wrote the earliest textbook on pastoral care. He pioneered diverse ways of dealing with a fearful person, a brash and impulsive person, an angry person, an overly passive person. He broke out these different struggles and sought to apply explicitly biblical, Christ-centered medicine—full of Christ, full of grace, full of gospel, and full of the hard call of God’s Word to the challenges of life.”

Besides not being impressed with Augustine for various reasons in addition to his rabid ant-Semitism, the only Gregory the Great that I know of is the former Catholic Pope of A.D 540. Again, I would not be comfortable with gleaning “insight” from a Roman Catholic Pope for purposes of biblical counsel. It’s just no big secret that Powlison believes that everything having breath upon the earth can contribute to biblical understanding, even psychiatry. We see a hint of this in the same article from Nine Marks:

“The modern psychologies present a tremendously stimulating, informative, and threatening challenge. These psychologies are stimulating because they push us to ask questions that we may not have already considered. They’re informational because they are very observant. They’re threatening because they are a self-conscious alternative to the church and would love to take over the care of souls. They’re willing to do our job for us, letting us be a religious club that does good works while they deal with the deep stuff and the long stuff.”

It is clear that Powlison believes Psychology and many other disciplines of non-Spiritual discernment are indispensable in a full understanding of the Scriptures. If you doubt that, here is what he is quoted as saying, again, in the same article:

“CCEF is also unique even within the wider biblical counseling movement in two more ways. One is what I call “R&D”—a research and development purpose. We don’t believe that saying “biblical counseling” means that we have figured it all out. We are a work in progress. We have a core commitment to push, to develop, to build, to tackle a new problem.”

Powlison then explains further what the strength of this “research and development” is:

“CCEF has five full-time faculty members who share a wonderful synergy, in part because you have people who all have a dual expertise—a primary commitment to Bible and theology, coupled with some other expertise. Our director, Dr. Tim Lane, was a pastor for years. He brings a sensitivity to how counseling ministry links to the other aspects of church life. Dr. Mike Emlet is an M.D. who had a family practice for years. He’s the scientist who brings an awareness of mind-body issues like psychiatric diagnosis and medications. Dr. Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology and a burning interest in the nuances of actual counseling moments and how counseling actually happens. Winston Smith stays very current with the psycho therapeutic world. He has given his life to issues of marriage and family and group dynamics. My graduate work (besides Bible and theology) was in the history of psychiatry, history of science, and history of medicine. I am only just speaking of the faculty and not speaking of various members of the much wider counseling staff who have various interests. It’s a very rich environment with a common commitment to biblical counseling.”

Powlison continually admits that CCEF endeavors to test every theory it can find with Scripture, believing that there is an element of truth in all of it that will lend more understanding to the Scriptures [he calls this “recycling”] While this should scare the Ozzy Osborne out of every thinking Christian, instead, Christians are immediately guzzling down everything that comes out of CCEF without any hesitation whatsoever. When you think of even the apostle Paul being deprived of such, it baffles the mind. Furthermore, this approach is what developed the “gospel driven life” movement as we know it today. Otherwise known as “gospel sanctification,” it has its own concept of the gospel, its own hermeneutic, it’s own theory of change, and it’s own experience. It is the “Christocentric” approach Powlison  speaks of in the same article. Let there be no doubt about it, the present day “gospel driven” theology is the brain child of the CCEF Eisegesis soup factory, and the brand is chock-full of everything that Popes and Sigmund Freud have to offer and deemed biblical by CCEF “experts.” The movement and its specific tenets; simply have no historical precedent before 1980, more reason for pause.  Indeed, David Powlison believes that the church “forgets things,” and apparently, the most recent thing it forgot about is the true gospel. But never fear, CCEF’s “research and development” team is hard at work setting things straight, until the next discovery.

So are any results in? Yes, I think so. You ever heard of Neuro-linguistic Programming? Many Psychologist consider it to be the most powerful and effective program for changing people available today. This alone, when Powlison’s mindset is considered, makes it very improbable that CCEF has not considered the possibility of some biblical truth to be found in NLP. Information on NLP is easy to get, a Google search will quickly produce more material than you could read in a year. Proponents of NLP have noted the similarities and value of CCEF’s teachings in regard to NLP, especially the writings of Paul David Tripp, who’s book “How People Change,” is based upon David Powlison’s “Dynamics of Biblical Change.” Tripp is sometimes quoted by Armand Kruger, the director of South Africa’s Institute of Neuro-Semantics, because of NLP concepts that can be found in “War of Words,” a book written by Tripp. This shouldn’t be a surprise because NLP is the study of how words and communication have the power to bring about change. Likewise, the importance of asking ourselves certain questions to evaluate the inner-man, is primarily a NLP concept, and strongly emphasized as well in Paul Tripp’s book, “How People Change.” David Field, a UK theologian and seminary professor, who advocates the integration of NLP with reformed theology, quotes David Powlison extensively, and confirmed his belief in the similarities of both teachings in a personal email correspondence between the two of us. Why would this be a surprise? In the above cited article, Powlison openly admits that Ed Welch has a PhD in neuro-psychology! NLP is a major component of neuro-psychology, this is common knowledge. Furthermore, in churches closely associated with CCEF, the NLP concept of visualizing possible future events and “reframing” them [or in this case, using the feelings invoked to “re-orient” the desires of the heart], can be found during teaching series using Paul Tripp’s “War of Words.” An actual copy of a study sheet associated with one of these studies can be found at this link:

http://germantownbaptistchapel.com/homework_pdf.pdf

In addition, in a face to face meeting with myself and elders of a church closely associated with CCEF, the elders would not deny that NLP was integrated in their teachings or the teachings of CCEF, of which their studies were based on. They would not even say that they were unaware of any facts, either way. Let me be clear, they would not even say: “We don’t know.” “We doubt it.” “No, that’s ridiculous,” or even, “Your stupid,” though I specifically ask them to tell me the latter.

What is in the CCEF soup? Hard telling, but the results are beginning to show. As I look out on the present reformed landscape, I have to believe the infamous Jim Jones would weep with envy. Powlison routinely espouses concepts that directly contradict the plain sense of scripture, and nobody blinks, but rather run to the vat with straws equipped with motor-driven suction. Why is it unreasonable to suggest that CCEF be held to the same standard that Paul was? Once more, in the above cited article, he boldly proclaims that he wrote a whole book based on removing the definite article “the” from Ephesians 4:15. No English translation does that, indicating that the text speaks of scriptural truth specifically, not the “big” and “little” truth that Powlison speaks of to build a case for “all” truth and problem centered counseling. This can also be seen clearly in the context of the text, where just prior to the conjunction, Paul is talking about false doctrine.

This stuff is going to show up in peoples lives. And in fact, as I write on these issues; more and more horror stories come to light. It is an Ozzy Osborne crazy train. You name it: Spouses divorcing other spouses because “You have abandoned me in your heart.” Counselees showing up for counseling appointments and finding themselves in a church discipline that requires release by fruit inspecting elders. Wives having their husbands brought up on church discipline for watching too much football. The list goes on and on, not to mention the incessant poo pooing of the plain sense of scripture for some general revelation. It almost seems like there is a competition to see who can come up with the latest and hottest counseling revelation, while God’s people wait with bated breath at the doorstep of Westminster Seminary.

I close with a suggestion for a “research and development” wing within the church. The apostles had one. You can find it in Acts 6:1-7. It entailed appointing men to oversee the needs of the church so elders could prayerfully search the Scriptures while holding each other accountable. I believe that verse seven speaks to the results. To suggest that the apostles also perused all the wisdom of that day to aid in the process of the “ministry of the word,” verse 4, is ridiculous and silly. Peter himself, the rock of the church, advocated no more than the “PURE” milk of the word [nothing mixed in, in-case you missed the point]. Pastors who let CCEF indiscriminately pump information into the minds of their people are asleep at the switch, and worse. Please, somebody stop the crazy train.

paul

“Where there is error, grace is not present”

I’m thinking it had to be another divine appointment that Christians get up to attend every morning. If you are saved, those appointments await you everyday. You cannot avoid them, they are predestined; therefore, all are glorious. Admittedly, the ease of accepting that and embracing it, depends on the appointment. But I readily accept my new friendship with J.F. Strombeck with all joy. He is teaching me more about grace,  and how it disciplines us in “Disciplined By Grace: Studies In Christian Conduct [published 1946].” Though his view of sanctification is a little heavy on the vertical side for my taste, so far, his smooth manner and heavy prefacing of biblical support for every point, has me enthralled and captivated. He is teaching me perspectives on law and grace that I have waited years to understand. I will be posting many times in regard to what I take away from this book.

However, for the purposes of my point in this post, I will focus on one aspect of grace that has surfaced in the front of my mind as a result of his teaching. God’s law [all scripture] has a different purpose for unbelievers as opposed to believers. I know, that’s not a very radical revelation. But the debate over what that purpose is; that’s a whole different story. But I am not even going that far, here is what I want to focus on: Sanctification is the continual impartation of grace by our Lord God. He who has begun a good work in us, will finish it [Philippians 1:6]. Peter admonished in his second letter, “Grow in grace.”

But what is also vital to understanding is the fact that grace and truth are synonymous. Therefore, as Christians, we seek to follow and apply God’s law to our life because of it’s impartation of God’s power, grace, and love. God imparts his love and grace through the truth, that’s a pretty hard-fast rule. John 10:10 says that Christ came “full of grace and truth.” Jesus prayed to the Father, “Sanctify them through your truth, your word is truth [John 17:17].” Jesus said of the Holy Spirit that indwells us, “He will guide you in all truth.” God indeed sanctifies us, but not apart from his truth. Where there is error, grace is not present…..where there is error, grace is not present. Never. This is one reason why Paul instructed Timothy to be strong in grace while committing the truth to faithful men who were able to teach others [2Timothy 2:1,2].

Dateline: Present day Christian circles. There is a “new” reformation going on. Apparently, we have been reading our Bibles “the wrong way.” The hot topic at hand is “hermeneutics,” or the method of interpretation used to understand the word of God. What is at stake? Grace is at stake; the driving force of our sanctification, it is by God’s grace that we are sanctified. Where truth is not properly understood, grace that sanctifies is not present either. It is my contention that because so much is at stake, God did not make the proper understanding of his word a complicated matter. Not only that, Christ promised us the Holy Spirit who leads us in all truth. In contrast, consider the hermeneutics propagated by the ever-growing  neo-reformed movement of our day, one being the interpretive theories of Geerhardus Vos, usually associated with what’s called “Redemptive Historical hermeneutics.” I have to smile when Christians tell me it’s the interpretive method they use to understand their Bibles. Vos’s theory of interpretation is so complex that Covenant College had to convene a senior integration project in an attempt to make heads or tails out of his hermeneutics. The result was a 147 page analytical critique by Ted Black. It is available on the internet for your perusal as well. Good luck, if you can comprehend it, you missed your calling. Others, such as a local “pastor,” have websites dedicated to Vos hermeneutics with articles that make Alice In Wonderland read like a well tuned documentary. Recently, a dear friend sent me a treatise on Christocentric hermeneutics [a kissing cousin of RHH] by Dennis E. Johnson, comprised of 432 pages. One element of Christocentric hermeneutics is the so-called “Apostles Hermeneutic” that the neo-reformed crowd continually harps about. But as one blogger is asking, “where is it?”

http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/in-search-of-the-apostles-hermeneutic-part-1/

http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/in-search-of-the-apostles-hermeneutic-part-2/

Truly, no movement has been more guilty of confusing the interpretation of God’s word than this movement, and in the tradition of “Has God really said?” Furthermore, the playful atmosphere and attitude in which they do it is often very annoying when one considers the gravity of the issue.

I simply don’t buy it. When you consider the desire of God to unleash his grace on Christians without measure, I have to believe that complicated systems of interpreting a major vehicle of grace; truth, is not in the mix. In regard to hermeneutics, I believe God supplies his own within the word itself, and primarily for the common man. I will borrow an informal comment I made to a friend to make my point: “The Bible has it’s OWN hermeneutics, not that of others. To use YOUR own is error. My hermeneutic is God’s hermeneutic. The sermon on the mount is a classic example. Those people were the peasants and down-trodden of that region. Matthew begins his account of the sermon by saying; and this is key, “He taught them.” That is God’s hermeneutical marker for that text. When I go to a class at Sinclair, the teacher doesn’t say, “your not going to properly understand what I’m teaching today until you understand the prism I’m using.” Whenever the Bible uses symbolism, a plain sense rendering almost always follows: “The candlesticks you saw are the Churches” “The field is the world” The soil is the heart of men” The seed is the word of God,” ect,ect,ect,ect. In Daniel, you have a vision and then an explanation, a vision and explanation, a vision and explanation. The angel even says to Daniel at one point [paraphrasing] “Now Daniel, this part you can’t understand right now, this is for the future. But here is what this part means and why it’s important that you understand it.” The Bible has it’s own hermeneutical processes, that’s the only presupposition anybody should have when approaching the word of God.”

Do I believe that there are those who take away a practical access to biblical understanding by the common parishioner in this present day? Do I believe it smacks of Catholicism past? Do I believe it hinders the grace of God? Absolutely.

paul

Here are three bits of information to start: I can’t say enough good things about Grace Community Church, and I can’t say enough negative things about Joel Olsteen; but with that said, I don’t like hypocrisy either. One of these days, I hope to make it to a Sheppards conference held annually at  John MacArthurs church [Grace Community]. Once again, my efforts fell short this year. One of the speakers at the 2009 conference was Pastor Steve Lawson of Mobile, Alabama. He brought the house down with a rendition of Joel Olsteens’ appearance on the Larry King show. Basically, Larry King asked Olsteen if non-Christian faiths were wrong about salvation because they didn’t believe in Christ. Olsteen said he didn’t know, which was bad enough, but Lawson was able to put a hilarious spin on the discourse because of the way Olsteen stuttered and stammered while answering. As I watched the video excerpt of Lawson‘s performance, I found myself somewhat offended. Why? Two reasons: I think everybody was having a little bit too much fun with it at the expense of one who is also created in God’s image. Secondly, they [Lawson, MacArthur, Mohler, et al.] seem to have a favorite buddy these days, John Piper. Lawson and MacArthur spoke with him at the Resolve conference this year. Like my grandmother use to say; “Birds of the feather flock together.” So, let me get this straight, Piper is less confused than Olsteen? Oh really? Consider the following outrageous statements he makes in his book, “Desiring God:”

“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)

“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith.”
(John Piper, Desiring God, page 69)

“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 61)

“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy.” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 66)

“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (page 67)

“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure.” (page 68)

So what’s the big dif? That’s what Olsteen emphasizes, a hedonistic joy now; not only that, Olsteen is not the only one of the two that “doesn’t know.” Here is what Piper says on page 55 of the same book:

“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (John Piper, Desiring God, page 55)

“Could it be!?” What does he mean, “could it be?” Doesn’t he know? He’s talking about the gospel! So, why is it ok for Piper not to know, but not Olsteen? Oh, that’s easy. Piper is “reformed” and Olsteen isn’t. If you carry the reformed label these days, you have the Joe Biden thing working for you. You know, “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Yes, what an anomaly Joe Biden is; he can say anything he wants and “Ahhhh, that’s just Joe.” Truly, John Piper has to be the Joe Biden of modern evangelicalism. It reminds me of others like him as well. While attending my former church which I left because of their acclimation to Gospel Sanctification [monergistic substitutionary sanctification, which Piper also propagates], I expressed concern to an elder over something another elder said from the pulpit to inquire as to whether or not he understood it the same way I did. The elder in question, related a counseling situation where a marriage was miraculously transformed in the first session because he merely showed them the glory of the “gospel narrative” from scripture. The other elder concurred; that’s what he said, but then replied, “Ahhhh, that’s just Dan.” Recently, I read an endorsement for a reformed book posted on Facebook. Later, my daughter informed me that the author was a Charismatic. In fact, many who hold to Charismatic doctrine are now widely accepted in reformed circles because they have the “gospel” right. Such is the environment we find ourselves in. If you are “reformed,” you can toy with God’s word anyway you see fit, even in regard to how we are sanctified. Just believe in monergistic  justification, and you are now free to play with God’s word anyway you want to.

Let me finish by saying something good about Joel Olsteen. At least he doesn’t pretend to be orthodox. The guy has plainly said: “I’m not a theologian.” That’s called honesty. Something could be learned from him in regard to that.

paul

It happened in the early 90’s. I was in the process of absorbing and applying truth from what I think was in fact a contemporary reformation. There is no doubt, Christianity had relinquished it’s faith and confidence in God’s word; specifically, in regard to solving the weightier issues of life and Godliness, deferring to the so-called “experts” of our day. Jay Adams, a reformed Presbyterian, introduced a structured biblical counseling system that radically changed lives through the power and instruction of God’s word. His thesis, after it was all said and done, and in a manner of speaking, begged this question by children; “daddy, what did Christians do about serious problems before  Sigmund Freud came along?” Surprisingly, and before evangelicals barely had a chance to catch their breath, something else came along, Heart Theology. Picking up again where my opening sentence left off, the following is how I was first introduced to Heart Theology. I was an elder in a church that was a training center for what was dubbed  “biblical counseling.” The elder that was primarily leading this program was also in the process of obtaining his doctorate degree from another counseling center attached to a reformed seminary. This is where he was introduced to this new counseling theology. It was added as a level 2 program, or addendum to what was already considered radical among evangelicals; namely, the concept that God’s word is sufficient for all matters of life and Godliness. I was skeptical in regard to this new twist. Let me explain the basic differences in the two approaches that fueled my skepticism.

First, in regard to the original biblical counseling movement, there are two basic characteristics of biblical counseling, as originally introduced by Adams. First, it changed preaching, which was predominately, and still is to a large degree, “about” the Bible. For instance, there may have been many sermons “about” the importance of communication from the Bible. For example, instances where men misunderstood God and gee whiz, bad things happened after that, so don’t do what they did.  Biblical counseling went beyond that to a deeper and technical understanding that was applied to real life situations. An example would be biblical precepts of communication that could readily be brought to mind in everyday life and applied accordingly. It was and is, technical wisdom from the word of God and specific instruction on how to apply it to real life. Once pastors learned to do this in the privacy of their office, it transfered to the pulpit  where it became preventative medicine for God’s people. Yet another example. Say a young couple in your church decides to marry. What usually happens? We rejoice and marry them!, right? The Jay Adams approach would ask three questions: Are these two young people experts on marriage? Probably not. Does God’s word have any wisdom that will prepare them for successful marriage that honors God? Of course. So should we just let them figure it out on their own? Probably not. This introduced Premarital Counseling in the church, with many pastors making it a prerequisite to that church’s participation in the wedding.

The other characteristic was an equal emphasis on justification and sanctification. Let’s be honest, the primary focus of evangelicals is getting people saved. Once there saved, we teach them the importance of church attendance, tithing, and learning about the Bible. Christ never told us to primarily get people saved, his mandate for the church is to “make disciples.” This is done by counseling with God’s word. Premarital Counseling, like many other aspects of biblical application, is “making disciples.” Preaching from the pulpit should also keep parishioners out of the counseling office as well as divorce court. The contention by Adams that pastors are to primarily counsel and not preach was indeed a shocker to many. Preaching should always contain counsel in regard to the technical application of God’s word to real life.

But in addition to these characteristics, one of the primary elements of this biblical counseling was it’s emphasis on objectivity. Jay Adams was, and I assume still is, a stickler for objective instruction rather than what was referred to as “fuzzy land.” However, I must concede this one weakness in the contemporary [about 37 years old] biblical counseling movement; there was a lack of emphasis on the monergistic resources that give us the strength to apply God’s wisdom to everyday life. But this is  understandable, for Evangelicals were preaching about the forest in habitual fashion. The gargantuan task of showing the importance of the individual trees and their proper application was bound to distract. So, in regard to the biblical counseling movement, I have explained two characteristics, one element, and one fault.

Strange, In the midst of this revolution that was pouring out hope, seemingly without measure, there was another movement afoot that had a compliant against the former and the new; namely, biblical counseling wasn’t vertical enough, Adams had simply refined the emphasis on the outward and made Baptist Pharisees into super Pharisees. Yes, the new reformation was bringing about lot’s of change, but it wasn’t “lasting change.” Their  answer?; they contended that Christians must abandon all emphasis on outward behavior and partake in emphasizing change at the “heart level.” That would be the two characteristics of the Heart Theology movement: change at the heart level, and real, lasting change [theoretically].

So, what does that look like [not “how,” which might imply some kind of verb to follow]? Well, the key is deciphering the “desires of the heart.” Desires reveal the idols in our heart, or anything that we love more than God. So, what does that look like? Well, we analyze desires of the heart three ways. First, by how we respond to circumstances. Second, by asking God to reveal the Idols through prayer. Thirdly, by imagining future scenarios and taking note of how it makes us feel. The second means is direct, God simply reveals it to us directly through prayer. The first and third means require the use of interpretive questions. So for instance, you are watching a football game and your wife demands that you take the trash out “right now!,” and this in fact makes you angry. The most common interpretive question is “what did you want?” The answer is the following, you wanted to be left alone to enjoy the game and you wanted to be shown more respect by your wife. There you have it, football and being respected are idol’s in your heart. If you now repent of these idols, they are emptied from your heart and God then fills that void in your heart with himself. To the extent that your heart has idols, God is not present. Depending on the presence and filling of God verses idols, obedience is a “mere natural flow” that doesn’t require effort [works] on our part.

This now brings me to the major element of Heart Theology, it’s nebulous and subjective. It also brings me to the fault of Heart Theology which is fatal. Unlike the understandable and easily adjusted error of biblical counseling, The fatal error of Heart theology is it’s conflict with 1 Kings 8:39;

“then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind),

This verse emphatically states that only God can know the heart. The Holy Spirit makes it a point to use the subject [God] twice with no words in between [modifiers ect.]. This is clearly for the purpose of strong emphasis. We cannot evaluate the heart in regard to idols. Besides, scripture often identifies sinful desires as being located in the “flesh” to begin with.

Though we depend on God’s strength, He would have us to focus on the objective and plain sense of scripture. Following God’s wisdom and instruction is our role. Knowing and changing the heart is God’s business. Nobody ever said we change ourselves through obedience, Adams certainly never said that. We are to learn, apply, pray, obey inwardly [thinking], obey outwardly, seek wise counsel, love, encourage, instruct, rebuke, disciple, and leave the changing and knowing to God. Adams said it best in a counseling conference: “The commands in the bible are not to the Holy Spirit, they are to us” and, “Quietism will ruin peoples lives.” There is no new reformation that narrows God’s precepts and wisdom for living to “deep repentance” that requires us to know our hearts. We cannot know our hearts, only God can. If there has been any reformation in the past 30 years, it has been the ability to apply the word of God to the every  issue of life and Godliness.

paul

 On pages 117-119 in “Christless Christianity,” Michael Horton puts forth a rather unique argument in regard to the gospel. According to Horton, the power of the gospel is sapped because we emphasize our testimony rather than “Christ.” I emphasize Christ in quotations because that is the constant mantra among many teachers today; we, you, us, or whoever is emphasizing or doing this, that, or the other instead of emphasizing [the name of] Christ. Read his argument carefully:

“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwell­ing sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.

Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and reloca­tion (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.

We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.

Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identi­fied the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.

Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?” I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church move­ment’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law [do this] without the gospel [this is what has been done]. “

I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. Hey, there is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts?!!! However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above, “what saith the Scriptures?”

“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives– when they see your respectful and pure conduct [1Peter3:1,2].”

Can I be honest here? I am a laymen and I have an appointment to go to shortly; will the above scripture reference suffice? I mean really, it blatantly contradicts everything Horton says in the above excerpt. Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the gospel as Peter also talked about? As an addition and quick aside, notice Horton’s Gospel Sanctification like protocol for our role in the sanctification process: “Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection.” In other words, in my estimation, he is saying we are changed by the passivity of looking [reading] upon the gospel as presented in a multi-faceted way from the Scriptures. At the very least, in regard to strict word interpretation, this is what he is saying. Only one single action [immersing ourselves in a story] is named that “results” in sanctification and mortification.
 

Here is my concern as I have stated in other articles [ http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/matthew-2410-13-love-has-a-soul-mate-the-law/] [http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/06/24/an-apostolic-call-to-discernment-in-the-%e2%80%9clast-days%e2%80%9d/], the Apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to diss the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those that claim to uphold God’s law by saying he does all the obeying for us, but that is another post.

 paul

I use to sell life insurance; In fact, I was the number one seller of term life in the company I worked for. I had my pitch down pat. If I could get a young married couple together at the kitchen table,  it was my sale. Nobody likes to deal with or think about death. But I had a pretty good pitch to get the appointment. Once there, I would start with statistics and concede that it was unlikely that the husband would die; but on the other hand, it’s also unlikely you would be in an auto crash, but you prepare by fastening your seat belts don’t you? And I would also add my favorite line: “If it happens to you, the chances are a 100%.” In other words it could happen. Well, in order to be prepared, I would ask the husband what he would want for his wife and children financially. The list was usually pretty impressive, that’s why I loved the newly weds. In the same way, even among unbelieving newlyweds, they don’t want to think about divorce. But if you were trying to sell them on the need for a prenuptial agreement, unlike death, the statistics are in your favor to begin your pitch, no positive objection is needed. There is only a 50% chance the marriage will make it, so why not make the process less painful by planning ahead of time? After all, divorce is less painful than death and people prepare for that don’t they? However, it would be a tuff sell among evangelical believers; better to target the reformed crowd in this hypothetical situation.

Why? Well, first of all, the Christian Hedonism movement is growing in reformed circles. This teaches that duty is a four letter word and obedience is only valid when accompanied by joy. So hey, if your not happy in the marriage  you can’t be expected to obey God out of some joyless duty because that’s not legitimate obedience anyway. Granted, most reformed counselors are not going to give you a pass solely on this point [I think, anyway]; but in regard to reformed marriages overall, the nose of the camel is already in the tent because of this growing doctrine.

But not withstanding, there is a growing trend that gets around this pesky obstacle; namely, Redemptive Church Discipline. If you are a reformed wife, you can have your husband put into this process which can include “any” sin that is making you unhappy in the marriage. Other “longstanding patterns of sin” can also be added to the process. If sufficient progress is not made, he will then be “declared” an unbeliever. This is key because the situation is now opened up to a broad interpretation of 1Corithians chapter 7 that will give “biblical” permission for the wife to file divorce. You ever heard the one about the widow and her daughter standing beside a grave with the young daughter asking the following?: “mommy, why do men always die first? The mother then answers: “women don’t know honey, but we think it’s a pretty good system.” Likewise, reformed women think the growing trend of bringing their husbands up on RCD and having them declared unbelievers is a pretty good system as well. They will either be obedient husbands or the door of nebuli will be opened-up to interpret the husbands heart in regard to whether or not he is really “pleased” as an unbeliever to live with the believing wife. Has he ever said he’s sorry he married you? Bingo, you go girl! After all, “from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” But hey, couldn’t the husband in turn bring the wife up on Church Discipline? No no. You see, another counseling staple of reformed theology is that you work on the husband first because he is the leader. Get the husband straightened out and the rest will follow. Wives are only bad wives because of the husband’s poor leadership. Therefore, It’s the same as selling life insurance, you deal primarily with the husband because he dies first; but in this case, he’s the one paying the money while he lives [it's called alimony], not the insurance company! A huuuuuuge selling point.

But it gets better. Whether husband or wife, there is a shortcut to having your spouse declared an unbeliever in reformed circles. “Gospel Sanctification,” which is the theology that possesses the above tenets  is thought to be the only true gospel by those who propagate it in reformed circles. There you go, if your spouse doesn’t understand or hold to GS, they aren’t saved. Obviously. How can you be saved if you don’t understand or hold to the only true gospel? Like I said, once you get that spouse in the “unbeliever” realm, all bets are off. It is truly strange in regard to the scriptures that are used to interpret 1 Corinthians 7 for this purpose as opposed to biblical concepts of loving even your enemies; but I digress, we are selling prenumpt here. Besides, it gets even better. When you get that young reformed couple at the kitchen table, find out whether or not they even know what GS is! This now puts their marriage in the precarious with a capital P! The sale is now at hand.

We live in tough economic times and one must think out of the box to gain employment. Why not subcontract with an attorney to sell prenuptial agreements? If you do, think reformed. I predict a divorce epidemic in their circles as these exciting new doctrines grow and flourish.

paul

Regardless of what you think of Hal Lindsey, I still think he coined one of the most profound sound bites on biblical error of all time: “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison.”

Granted, the Bible clearly teaches us to live ACCORDING to the gospel. We are to love the way God loved us, sacrificially [John 3:16]. We are to forgive the way God forgave us, unconditionally in regard to degree [Col. 3:13]. We are to serve those who God serves, everybody [Mark 10:44-46]. We repented when we were saved, we should repent daily [1John1:9, though it is not the exact same repentance as the repentance of salvation; John 13:8-10].

But there is a big difference between living in accordance [a verb that means to agree with or harmonize] with the gospel and the constant mantra of “living ‘by’ the gospel.” The first implies that we do something that brings our lives into agreement with the gospel. The latter implies that the “gospel” does it all. “By” is a preposition that means “through.” The difference between “I walked to the store” and, “I arrived at the store ‘by’ automobile.” That is why Gospel Sanctification is also called “Gospel ‘Driven’ Sanctification.” The gospel DRIVES the sanctification, not us [though we take part, the Holy Spirit is our helper: John 14:16,17,26,27. It should be apparent that we would not need a “helper” if we have no part in our sanctification].

But what’s the big deal? What makes one the norm and the other grievous error?

1] Obedience, a theme that saturates scripture from Genesis to Revelation, is redefined as a mere result rather than an exercise of the will to love God. The implication of the preposition used in the mantra is no accident. One example would be John Piper’s concept of “beholding as a way of becoming [Pleasures Of God pg. 15].” In other words, we don’t do anything but gaze at the glory of the gospel and are changed by it accordingly [advocates of GS like to cite 2Cor. 3:18 for this] which leads to a joyful, effortless, obedience. This is also the strong theme of “How People Change” by Paul Tripp, an associate of John Piper. In Tripp’s book, he propagates a “resting and feeding” which leads to “new and surprising” fruit as observed in the Bible’s “fruit catalogue.”

Another constant theme is the prescribed avoidance of “obeying God in ‘our own efforts.’” Again, no accident here, we are not to employ effort in the sanctification process.

2] I take exception to the term “Living ‘by’ the gospel” because the scriptures teach that we are sanctified “by” the Holy Spirit. Does Gospel Sanctification therefore diminish the role of the Holy Spirit in Sanctification?, yes, definitely. The Bible clearly states that we are changed “by” the Holy Spirit, not “the gospel [Rom.8:14, Gal. 6:8, Rom.8:4, Rom. 15:16, 1Cor. 6:11, 2Th 2:13, 1Pet. 1:2,].”

3] Gospel Sanctification also diminishes the role of Scripture in the sanctification process via the preposition “by” in regard to the gospel. Again, with Holy writ being scarce in the area of specifically saying that we are changed “by” the gospel, we to the contrary have ample evidence that the Holy Spirit uses scripture to change us[1Pet. 2;1 John 14:25]. Amplifying this reality is the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic [the resident hermeneutic of Gospel Sanctification] which makes ALL scripture synonymous with the gospel and SOLEY FOR THE PURPOSE of “showing forth the gospel.” Therefore, the term “living ‘by’ the gospel” is now removed two fold from being biblically accurate by diminishing the role of the Holy Spirit and Scripture as well.

4] The term and it’s implied and applied meaning confuses God’s truth and necessitates additional error to rectify original error. If all Scripture is about the gospel instead of who God is and what he is like, well then, “God Is The Gospel [John Piper],” right? If ALL Scripture is about the gospel instead of specific instruction concerning kingdom living, then you need a “Gospel Centered” hermeneutic, right? If living by the gospel abrogates living by obedience to the Law than we need something like “Christian Hedonism,” right?

So what makes the supposed norm correct and the above thesis disastrous error? Let’s examine that question from Ephesians 4:20-24:

20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

First of all, we can now participate in the sanctification / salvation process because God has made us new creatures, we are “created after the likeness of God.” There is no glory for us, he is the one who recreated us. Without that, we can do nothing. Our role in this sanctification process is abundantly obvious: We are to “put of the old self” and “put on the new self” which God has prepared for us and is fully equipped with all the resources in Christ described in the first 3 chapters prior to this text.

The following verses begin with “therefore” in verse v25 and explain the specifics of how this is done. The specifics of our role in the sanctification process is one of the major themes of scripture. Scripture not only explains the wisdom involved in sanctification and how to apply it, but also what the experience will be like.

Gospel Sanctification is a nightmare because it misrepresents our role in the sanctification process and how we experience sanctification as well. It not only narrows our spiritual repertoire into a subjective concept to the detriment of many, it creates additional false tenets that attempt to make “living ’by’ the gospel” fit into erroneous dogma. It only takes a little preposition to do that.

paul.

The question posted by a friend on my blog awakened a reality I am familiar with concerning some reformed churches. The friend was participating in a women’s Bible study and became surprised when the discussion turned to wives involving church elders in disputes with disobedient husbands. The hypothetical scenario presented in the question concerned a husband going to ball games instead of church and poo pooing the wife’s concerns accordingly. Could she then go to the church elders and have her husband brought up on church discipline? This wasn’t my friends question to me, this is the question she listened to at the study and wanted to know my thoughts.

Let me set the table here. More and more reformed churches are practicing what is known as “redemptive church discipline.” It goes along with making everything in the church and church life “redemptive.” In other words, EVERYTHING is about the gospel and redemption. We must read everything in the Bible with a redemptive theme and interpret it accordingly. All sermons must have a redemptive theme. Our life must be ordered by the gospel instead of biblical precepts [whatever that means and unfortunately I do know], ect. ect.

Here is how it works: A naughty husband is going to Cincinnati football games instead of church. Granted, not a good idea, especially when it’s the Bengals we are talking about. The wife confronts her husband about it [first step of Matthew 18, if your brother offends you, go to him alone]. He does not repent. The wife then goes to the elders about the situation. The elders[probably two of them] then go and talk to the husband about the situation. This is not confrontational or instructive, the elders are there to determine the facts of the situation. If the elders confront the husband, he may only conform outwardly because the elders are involved and that wouldn’t be true “heart change” and we wouldn’t want that. Also remember, we are talking Bengals here, repentance in regard to them may not be true heart change as well. Now if it’s the Pittsburgh Steelers, we are now talking deep repentance that could only be from above. All of these things must be taken into consideration.

The two elders then go to the other elders to decide whether the errant husband needs “redemptive church discipline.” If he does, a meeting is then set up with the husband. In the meeting, he is informed that he is now “under church discipline.” Tag, your it! In most cases, the husband is going to be bewildered because most reformed parishioners don’t understand how this form of church discipline works and the reason for that is easy, if potential members had a complete understanding of how it works, there wouldn’t be any members there.

But I digress. Here is how the “process” works: The husband is now under the first step of church discipline. If he verbally repents when meeting with the elders, that doesn’t cut it, he is only repenting to get out of the situation. What we are after here is “real heart change.” Amen. The elders will now observe the errant husband over a period of time to determine true repentance. If he tries to take his family and leave during this time, he will be excommunicated from the fellowship and declared an unbeliever. Lack of progress during the process will result in the elders moving the husband to the next step of discipline, which can also lead to excommunication if he reaches the third and final step. An example would be if the husband started to watch too much football on TV instead of helping around the house or leading the family in devotionals. This would be merely replacing one idol for another idol and again, what we are after here is true “redemption.” The gospel not only saves us, it must redeem us from the remnant of sin as well. Hence, “redemptive church discipline.” In many cases, the husband will be expected to repent from a traditional view of sanctification and embrace “Gospel Sanctification” to be eligible for release.

As a former elder who has experienced the frustration of husbands who just don’t get it, including myself, this is a very attractive scenario. Husbands either shape up, or you can ship them out. ANY sin is game for “redemptive church discipline.” It is a sure fire way of fine tuning the church body while keeping people in line and looking like a church that means serious business in regard to the gospel. If you have any sin issues in your church, it aint gunna be an issue for long, the elders have a license to clean house.

Furthermore, the word gets out to frustrated wives via “Bible studies” that there are churches out there that will deal with your rascally husband one way or the other, unlike those looser dispensational churches that turn a blind eye to sin. Amen. Though I have no direct knowledge of the following unlike the above, I strongly suspect that some wives talk their husbands into going to certain churches for this reason and the husband follows suit as a dumb ox being led to the slaughter. These days, husbands had better get on top of theology issues and pay attention. I have had the wonderful opportunity to answer the following comment by Christian husbands of late: “Hey, I’m not much of a theology guy like my wife, she’s in-to all of those 50 cent theology words.” My response is usually something like the following: “ So, these lunches you have been having with Satan, Applebees’s or Friday’s? I hear Applebees’s has an awesome 2 for twenty goin on.”

There is only one problem with all of this, It’s not biblical. If you are in a reformed church, you need to get on top of what kind of church discipline is being practiced.

http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/the-church-discipline-buffet/

The bottom line is this: church discipline is for sins of the baser sort, not silly husbands. Look at the qualifications for elders. The Holy Spirit assumes that some men in the church will struggle with anger, not ruling their home well, and even hangin out around the juice longer than they should. Do you know what that means? It means they can’t be elders, it doesn’t mean you put them under church discipline, especially unscriptural church discipline.

Let me close with this. My friend ended her inquisition with this comment: “It has always been my approach to guard my husbands honor.” This was my response :”LOL! it’s such a lost concept that it stinking dazes you when you hear it. It reminds me of when some guy rabbit punched me from behind after drafting class in high school.”

Sad but true. Have we really come to the point where that is not the first inclination among reformed women but rather to find a way to have their husbands brought up on church discipline?

I certainly hope not.

paul

“It is an item of faith that we are children of God; there is plenty of evidence in us against it. The faith that surmounts this evidence and that is able to warm itself at the fire of God’s love, instead of having to steal love and self-acceptance from other sources, is actually the root of holiness. . . . We are not saved by the love we exercise, but by the love we trust.”

- Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979), 213.

Almost everyday, I stumble upon an article presenting Galatians as a Pauline contention against synergistic sanctification. Galatians is presented this way as a proof text to validate passive forms of sanctification running rampant in reformed circles. As I was sorting through some scribbled notes on scrap paper the other day, I even saw a reference to a teacher that called any separation of justification and sanctification an “abomination.” Whew, that’s a pretty heavy statement, but not foreign to advocates of theology which combines justification and sanctification in every respect.

Simply stated, the formula is the following: like justification, sanctification is a total work of God that requires no effort on our part. As  a matter of fact, any effort on our part is works salvation and sin. Yes, our bodies and mind will obey and do good works, but it is not us performing the work, it is the living Christ in us doing the work through us. How do we know when it’s us or Christ doing the work? Easy, whenever we serve and obey with a willing, joyful spirit, that’s Christ doing the work. Any performance of duty with a grudging, joyless spirit is sin. You are better off not performing the duty if you cannot do it as a “mere natural flow” accompanied by joy. The role of the believer is passive. We are primarily transformed by “gazing” on God’s glory and the gospel via the scriptures. John Piper advocates a “beholding as a way of becoming [pg 15 Pleasures Of God].” Michael Horton advocates a regular immersion in the “gospel story” as the primary way of change [pg 118 Christless Christianity]. Paul David Tripp says we should merely “rest and feed” on Christ [pg 28 How People Change].

Admittedly,  Galatians 2:20 -3:3 seems to strongly validate this view. Paul says in Galatians 2:20:

Furthermore, Galatians 3:3 seems to even put the icing on the cake:

Indeed, these verses seem to strongly affirm this view.  Also, 3:4,5 is cited to suggest that effort on our part nullifies salvation:

But is this really what Paul was saying in Galatians? Even proponents of this passive view must admit that scripture makes a distinction between justification, sanctification and glorification [1Cor.1:30, 6:11]. But  beside  that, Paul is not talking about sanctification at all in the first 4 chapters of this book. As a matter of fact, he takes a hard left turn in 5:7 , and there begins to talk about the implications of sanctification and our role thereof. The fact that Paul is addressing the subject of justification in the body of where Galatians 2:20-3:3 resides is clearly evident [ 3 times alone in Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:17, 2:21, 3:8, 3:11, 3:24, 5:4].

What is Paul really talking about?  We have many examples today, but let me illustrate at least one. The Church of Christ believes [not all veins] that you are saved by the ordinance of baptism. Not only that, you can lose your salvation. How? Well, by not keeping the law. I believe this is the closest example of what we have today that Paul was talking about. First of all, it is clear that a salvation by circumcision [ordinance] is in the mix here: 2:3, 2:12, 5:2, 5:3, 5:6, 5:11. Paul is talking about a form of Judaism that required circumcision to get in the kingdom, and then an observance of the law to stay in the kingdom. The keeping of the law to retain salvation, also required observance of additional ordinances [4:10:11]. Paul summarizes these points in 5:2-5:5;

This is what was going on: The Galatians had been saved out of this false gospel and were being intimidated into going back to it. This is the whole point of Paul sharing his confrontation with Peter in 2:11-14. The Lord used me to save a guy from a Church of Christ sect back in 1984. If he ever went back to that sect, the book of Galatians would be a good picture of that, but it certainly would not be a picture of some evangelical striving to please Christ!  By the way, take note as well that Paul doesn’t say the Galatian error is trying to be SANCTIFIED by the law, the error is an attempt to be “justified” by the law [5:4].

As far as Paul teaching a plenary monergism from Galatians, consider what he says as he takes a hard turn into the sanctification part of this letter:

Hello, note that although we are saved by grace alone, there is still a “running” and “obeying.” Furthermore, because Paul has made such a hard case for our freedom in Christ, he cautions against an unbalanced approach in 5:13-15;

Here, we may have a clue as to what drew the circumcision party to Galatia and why they got a hearing. An overly passive approach to our freedom in Christ was yielding bad results, Paul even eludes to it in several verses like 5:16 and 6:7.

Let me conclude with a thought on Galatians 2:20. Paul says we live this life in the flesh by faith. But faith does not equal “let go and let God”!!!! In a matter of fact, when our efforts bring us to the point where we don’t feel like we can go on, we continue by faith, believing that God will supply what we need to persevere. That’s why Paul says in 6:9:

Why is Paul exhorting us not to give up? Gee whiz, we must feel like it some times. The exhortation here is to continue by faith regardless of how we feel, not to back up and figure out why we are weary of well-doing in the first place. We also see this in Hebrews 12:12:

Striving by faith is the key, but even though it is by faith, it is still a striving. It’s the same as our “hanging on” to Christ. We are hanging on, but that’s not where our confidence is [Hebrews 3:6].

Any teaching that propagates a “gazing” at the gospel in scripture that results in an automatic exhilaration to obey is grievous error. We are to work out our salvation with trembling and fear,  knowing that we have all the resources of Christ working in us to persevere accordingly [Philippians 2:12,13]. Though faith is a gift from God and we can do nothing without it, the fact remains that our works contribute to faith and the two work together to perfect both [James 2:22]. This is a mystery made possible only by God, but be sure of this, Galations does not teach that we are only potted plants in the sanctification process.

paul

As I was doing some study in Matthew 28 the other day, this silly thought came to mind: with all of the latest rave about living by the gospel everyday, and “experiencing” the gospel afresh everyday, why not crank-up the baptismal and baptize everyday?  Why not? It would seem to be a most helpful exercise in that regard.

Really, you could start everyday the way you publicly identified yourself with the gospel. What a great reminder of why we get up and go out into the world everyday [maybe this isn‘t so silly after all!]. Now, one could argue that the scriptures are void of such a thing but so what? It’s a good idea, and we live in an age where going to the bible to prove a good idea is perfectly acceptable. Point in case: John Piper openly admits on page 17 of  “The Pleasures Of  God” that the whole premise of the book was based on a idea he got while reading Henry Scougal. Piper’s  idea was a supposed logical conclusion of one of Scougal’s ideas. He then took a sabbatical from his church to research the possibility that his idea was biblical and SHAZAAM!, there it was! Regardless of the fact that old fogies warned me against eisegesis in bible college, this book is considered the hottest thing since sliced bread in reformed circles so who I’m I to judge?

Let’s explore further, this thing is really coming together in my mind. In developing this idea, we have the Gospel Centered hermeneutic on our side. This is also known as the Redemptive Historical and Christocentric hermeneutic. This enables us to conclude all sorts of exciting gospel centered ideas from the scriptures because it reads all of scripture from that perspective. It’s an awesome hermeneutic because when a verse is literally about the gospel, you read it literally. But if you run into a pesky portion of scripture that seems to imply some practical application to life and worse yet, abhorrent concepts such as duty and obedience, you merely switch to redemptive symbolism. Awwwwesome.

This could help explain the other Church ordinance as well, the Lord’s Table. We only practice that every so often which is confusing. Christ said to “do this in remembrance of me.” If we are to live the gospel everyday and this is the primary focus of everyday sanctification, why would Christ initiate an ordinance to remind us of the gospel? And if Christ said to do it to remember him, why wouldn’t  we observe the Lord’s Table everyday? Maybe because there are other ways we are supposed to remember Christ?, like maybe “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.” Hey, I’m just asking. I am in no way suggesting that the concept of Gospel Sanctification is in logical conflict with Church ordinances. Nooooo, not me.

Besides, I am confident the Gospel Sanctification movement has another thing going for it other than it’s hermeneutic, inclusion. Yep, if you believe in Gospel Sanctification, your in the club baby. We have “reformed” Charismatics, reformed Catholics, ect, ect., ect. If you advocate GS, all that other doctrine is “secondary.” Sweet dude. Therefore, these various and sundry belief systems can bring in all sorts of different ways to live the gospel everyday. We can at least recognize the gospel every time we assemble by communion and sprinkling. Obviously, in some large churches, baptismal services would be a time killer and create a huge water bill to boot. If our Charismatic friends want to remember Pentecost by speaking in tongues every time they assemble, that would seem to be an apt recognition of the gospel as well.[ mark  it well, weird stuff is coming down the pike, remember I said it].

However, there is one practice that I assume would be excluded: Old line Baptist churches are no longer hip in reformed circles so the often sneered at alter call would be out of the question all together. Funny, a call of the gospel at the end of every service isn’t cool among those who teach that we should live by the gospel everyday. Whatever.

Never the less, I am confident it will all work out. Until then, use your bathtub.

paul

This started out as a reply in a Facebook conversation, but ended up as a post:

Ok, let’s bring this conversation down to where we live. I  believe most Christians who discuss  doctrines of grace today do not  truly understand where modern Calvinism stands in our current church culture,  and how it actually effects peoples lives. Today’s Calvinist  not only believes we have no part in our own salvation, but there are those who believe sanctification (the growth part of salvation) is achieved by God alone as well.

“Monergism” is a term that means God acted alone without the >cooperation< of man. “Synergism” means that man must have the basic and ongoing enablement from God to do anything, but cooperates and co labors with God in the process. As I stated previously, many modern Calvinists believe that the salvation process, which includes salvation, sanctification and glorification, is all monergistic in nature.

First of all, the modern Calvinist believes that a denial of monergism in any three parts (glorification of course is a non issue) IS A DENIAL OF SALVATION ITSELF. Therefore, if you believe you contribute to the sanctification process, that thinking is also a denial of the true gospel. “The gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you,” and….”If you move on to something else  (the calvinistic gospel that saved you,) you loose both.”

Secondly, the modern Calvinist recognizes that most Christians hold to a belief in synergistic sanctification (not salvation,) and therefore calls for a NEW REFORMATION. Even the belief in a monergistic salvation and synergistic sanctification calls one’s salvation into question.The modern calvinist believes that we are in an era of “Christless Christianity” and sees himself as the Martin Luther of our age.

Thirdly, this not only throws the gauntlet of damnation at the feet of those who believe in free will, it throws the same gauntlet at the feet of those who fancy themselves as an orthodox Calvinist. Somehow, I find this intriguing.

Fourthly, In regard to how this modern movement effects real life: as this teaching permeates churches, some spouses embrace it and others do not. This creates conflict in a marriage where a spouse who formally saw their partner as saved, now thinks otherwise. This might actually effect the soundness of a marriage, ya think? Another consequence of  plenary monergism is a contentious attitude toward others by those with this reformation mindset, seeing them as Papal minions. Furthermore, a paralyzing confusion is more and more prevalent in the lives of many as the issue is not being openly addressed.

This is not a debate about semantics. Doctrine and philosophy always translate into life. The majority of Calvinists today do not fully realize the beliefs of their Calvinist teachers. And many of the aforementioned teachers have doubts as to the true  conversion of their flock. This particular post is not to take a position, but to suggest that if true Calvinism is being hijacked, leaders should either stand up or give up the city. Fellowship and unity with men who are on the book circuit, speaking circuit, or  with highly valued Westminster degrees is not to be valued above God’s truth.

paul

What do you think our function is in regard to the sanctification process? Do we co labor with God as he enables?, or does Christ do it all through us? You say: “Well Paul, I am kinda thinkin through that.” Well, you better hurry up because according to Horton, Powlison, Tripp and others, a lack of understanding concerning sanctification is equal to a lack of understanding concerning the gospel and if you don’t understand the gospel, you aren’t saved.

I have a copy of “Christless Christianity” right in front of me in my formally nicotine stained hands. On page 62, Micheal Horton says the following:

“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.”

So to summarize:

1] The Spirit only works through *the gospel* whether it is in the lives of the unregenerate or the regenerate [the same gospel that saves us sanctifies us, so if salvation is monoergistic, so is sanctification].

2] *Progressive transformation* ONLY happens through *the gospel*

3] Progressive transformation only takes place as we “encounter the gospel AFRESH.”

4] Sanctification is also the gospel.

5] If you move on to something else other than a monergistic gospel, you LOOSE BOTH.

Horton is clearly saying that if you move from a monergistic salvation to a synergistic sanctification, YOU LOOSE BOTH.

This is the cat cry I continually hear from the Gospel Sanctification crowd and it is how they interpret the book of Galatians, 3:2,3 in particular. They also like Galatians 2:20 to make the same point.

Paul IS NOT telling the Galatians that the law is the law and our relationship to it cannot change after salvation.

Furthermore, the scriptures make it clear that salvation is a new birth and sanctification is a growing process, to say they don’t function differently is really a stretch.

paul

I want to be careful, this post does not concern Justification but I want to touch on it by way of introduction. There are two major, major questions that have always been afoot in Christianity: What is the role of God and man in Justification [salvation] and what is the same for Sanctification. Also, a new question could even be added; Is there really any difference in the two?

Let me first begin by touching a little on my view of salvation. I want to begin at ground level. Though God planted seeds of the gospel throughout my life, the full court press was about a one year period leading up to my confession. It would seem to me, from ground level, that I was involved in that process. There was a great mental debate going on in my head. Not only that, I will never forget the crude bible lesson I gave a well meaning Christian and church leader who pleaded with me to disregard any concern for the sin in my life and “just say the prayer.”

I knew becoming a Christian meant giving up the old life, and I was not willing to do that. Oh, I had come to the point where I believed the gospel intellectually, but I was not about to give up the present life that I loved to follow Christ. Then God brought circumstances into my life that were very effective theological instruction and the decision was then made.

With that said, I firmly believe that all the circumstance stated above happened because God decided it would happen before the foundation of the world. I repented because it was “granted” to me [Acts 11:18]. Though I had a role, God made it all possible. God injected all of  the necessary elements of salvation into my life. Like a wind-up toy that can do nothing until someone picks it up, winds it up, and sets it on the floor, so is man without God’s predetermined choosing before the foundation of the world.  This drives my new found brothers in arms nuts. But it’s ok, they agree with me. When we pray together, they are constantly asking God to save people. Case closed.

Now some further confession. This doctrine, though I hold to it, doesn’t exactly thrill me to death. I have unsaved family members whom I love dearly and the prospect that God has possibly predetermined that they will spend eternity in hell does not exactly give me warm fuzzes. Yes, I use to throw around all of the reformed clichés while sticking my chest out: “What’s worse, people going to hell or God not getting all the Glory he deserves?” “We should be utterly amazed that God would save anybody!!” These may be good and true statements, but they should be spoken with trembling and fear. I am not as stoic and “spiritual” as some modern day self styled “reformist” that are alright with people going to hell so God won’t be robbed of any glory that they  are self-proclaimed contemporary custodians of. God can well take care of his own glory and does not need help from the arrogant.

I instead focus on the positive attributes of the doctrine that I can understand and apply. If God does all of the saving, the job was done right. In trials, I can take comfort that God is sovereign. The rest I can trust God for. This is the bottom line for me: I am committed to follow and believe God’s revelation concerning who he is, what he has done, and his instruction for mankind. Psalm 25:8 says the Lord is good in all he is and all he does. That’s true whether I understand everything or not. That’s true whether I embrace all of God’s truth with all joy or not. I will confess Psalm 25:8 to him and wait on his understanding. He has always given us trust as our mainstay, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding [Proverbs 3:5].”

Is there any difference?

But now what of sanctification? If salvation is totally of God, would we have a part in sanctification either? Admittedly, it sounds a little inconsistent. A sole work of God in salvation or sanctification is known as “monergism.” A cooperative work between man and God in either is known as “synergism.”

With that, the three traditional parts of redemption would be “justification [salvation],” “sanctification [growing process of salvation],” and “glorification [when we are not only declared  holy but made holy in God’s presence].”

The admitted difficulty of my biblical argument should be as follows: Everyone including so-called atheist would not deny that glorification is a monergistic act of God. If you then also propose “election” or Calvinism, this only leaves a synergistic interpretation of sanctification sandwiched in the middle and only one out of three. This should be easy pickings for those who want to argue for monergistic sanctification, but such is not the case.

I guess my first argument for synergistic sanctification is the fact that direct and numerous Bible statements that support monergistic salvation and glorification are for the most part conspicuously absent in regard to sanctification, regardless of the “sandwich” model presented above. What appears to build as a strong argument for the opposition quickly falls into peril under this reality. Actually, in regard to sanctification, unlike salvation and glorification, the Bible is flooded with the idea of a co labor between God and his children in the same way the latter are marked with statements of monergism. In his introduction to 20 letters on Holiness, J.C. Ryle argues this from the perspective of saving faith:

“ But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith. The very same Apostle who says in one place, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,” says in another place, “I fight–I run–I keep under my body;” and in other places, “Let us cleanse ourselves–let us labor, let us lay aside every weight.” ( Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 9:26; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 4:11; Hebrews 12:1.) Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere teach us that faith sanctifies us in the same sense, and in the same manner, that faith justifies us! Justifying faith is a grace that “works not,” but simply trusts, rests, and leans on Christ. ( Romans 4:5.) Sanctifying faith is a grace of which the very life is action: it “works by love,” and, like a main-spring, moves the whole inward man. ( Galatians 5:6.) After all, the precise phrase “sanctified by faith” is only found once in the New Testament. The Lord Jesus said to Saul, “I send you, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith that is in Me.” Yet even there I agree with Alford that “by faith” belongs to the whole sentence, and must not be tied to the word “sanctified.” The true sense is, “that by faith in Me they may receive forgiveness of sins and inheritance among those who are sanctified.” (Compare Acts 26:18 with Acts 20:32.)”

In my estimation, an utterly profound argument: “…..the Scriptures nowhere teach us that faith sanctifies us in the same sense, and in the same manner, that faith justifies us!”

The anticipated argument that comes will be an eisegesis of God’s sovereignty as apposed to an exsegesis of the same according to His choosing. Obviously, God has chosen to limit his attributes before in the grand scheme of his Devine pleasure and purposes [ Matthew 24:36 Philippians 2:6]. This sends the gate keepers of God’s self esteem running away screaming with their hands over their ears, but is none the less the plain sense of Devine writ. 

How does sanctification work?

It’s ironic, the ESV bible that most proponents of monergistic sanctification prefer translates 1 Thessalonians 3:2 by calling Timothy “God’s coworker.” That’s what we are and that’s what we do, co labor with God in the sanctification process. 1Corinthians 3:9 says we are God’s “fellow workers [though this applies to the Apostles and leaders in a technical way, a further study and reference to 2Corinthians chapter 5 reveals that it is applicable to all believers].”

I think Colossians 1:29 gives us the best picture but at any rate, it’s not rocket science:

“For this purpose also I labor, striving according to His power, which mightily works within me.”

Paul said he labored and strived [struggled] “according” to God’s power. We do the work, but God gives us unlimited resources to tap into. A pastor I once knew used to say, “The power is in the doing.” Sure it is, because when you work, it is according to God’s power, but it is still you doing it. Paul again puts it this way in Philippians 2:12,13;

“So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for {His} good pleasure.”

Ever feel like you don’t have the will to do what God wants you to do? It’s  just a feeling. God has given you all the will, energy and power that you need to obey and please him. That’s why Paul also said in Philippians 4:13, “I can do all things through him who strengthens me.” God also employs outside resources as well like encouragement from others and promise of reward [1Corinthians 3:12-15 2Corinthians 5:10].

Let me drive home this point with another quote by J.C. Ryle:

“But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith. The very same Apostle who says in one place, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,” says in another place, “I fight–I run–I keep under my body;” and in other places, “Let us cleanse ourselves–let us labor, let us lay aside every weight.” ( Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 9:26; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 4:11; Hebrews 12:1.)”

“But, on the other hand, it would not be difficult to point out at least twenty-five or thirty distinct passages in the Epistles where believers are plainly taught to use active personal exertion, and are addressed as responsible for doing energetically what Christ would have them do, and are not told to “yield themselves” up as passive agents and sit still, but to arise and work. A holy violence, a conflict, a warfare, a fight, a soldier’s life, a wrestling, are spoken of as characteristic of the true Christian. The account of “the armor of God” in the sixth chapter of Ephesians, one might think, settles the question.”

The Hebrew writer exhorts the exhausted and exasperated Hebrews to ”lift up the hands that hang down and strengthen your weak knees [Hebrews 12:12].” I relate  well to this as I use to be a long distance runner [a looooong time ago]. That’s what is going on with your body when you feel like you can’t run another mile. The writer tells them to get their second wind, it is there to be had by God who supplies it. But be sure of this, we are the ones running and also feeling the pain.

As we work hard to obey, think biblically, serve well and love well, God’s power is unleashed. Mark it and mark it well, passive forms of sanctification will always lead to an unfortunate result.

“All the doctrines of the Gospel are practical principles. The word of God was not written, the Son of God was not incarnate, the Spirit of God was not given, only that Christians might obtain right views, and possess just notions. Religion is something more than mere correctness of intellect, justness of conception, and exactness of judgment. It is a life-giving principle. It must be infused into the habit as well as govern in the understanding; it must regulate the will as well as direct the creed. It must not only cast the opinions into a right frame, but the heart into a new mould. It is a transforming as well as a penetrating principle. It changes the tastes, gives activity to the inclinations, and, together with a new heart, produces a new life.”

- Hannah More, Practical Piety

(HT: The Scriptorium)

According to Michael Horton, a Westminster Professor with all the titles that go along with it, the “gospel” is the summation of all doctrine and purely “indicative” of what God has done. In other words, there is no connection between the gospel and law [imperatives or commands], other than it’s purpose to drive us to the cross daily. Put another way by Horton: “ the gospel is not an imperative, but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world.” Therefore, we would not dare incorporate any kind of imperative in the gospel, it is purely indicative and separate from the law and it’s imperatives. We could also address the daily role of the gospel and the notion that it is the summation of all doctrine, but that would be a digression from the matter at hand here.

This would not bode well for “lordship salvation”, which would require something from the individual in the gospel presentation. As John MacArthur puts it, an exchange for everything we are for everything he is. Therefore, plan A would present the gospel and sit back to see what God does. Plan B would present the Gospel and also emphasize commitment and perseverance. This is far from being a matter of mere semantics, this in fact determines how we present the gospel and what we believe about it.

I was initially prompted to post this by a real life experience that came to mind while reading some of Hortons articles. I was reading my bible one day and thought Acts 17:30 would be a good presentation of the gospel when a very narrow period of time was allotted; “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all {people} everywhere should repent,” I unwittingly shared this with a follower of Michael Horton and this person proceeded to go ballistic, accusing me of being a Pharisee and propagating works salvation, though not in those words. I thought this bazaar and peculiar, taking into consideration that I borrowed this example from how the apostle Paul presented the gospel to those in Athens. Paul’s presentation included the resurrection and warning of judgment as well but was prefaced by the concept of repentance, an obvious imperative. So, I thought I would make my point with a few scriptures that presented the gospel in the imperative, thinking there weren’t that many. Then came the shocker.

First, let me say this, I don’t know that there is a bigger Calvinist around other than myself. But I also remember the words of a pastor friend of mine in Fort Wayne Indiana, “you can’t cram God and his truth into a theological system, it will raise questions you can’t answer every time.” Amen. God’s truth is applicable truth and we are commanded accordingly. Nowhere in scripture are we commanded to figure out all of the paradoxes of the Bible. If all of scripture cannot reconcile your system, it’s a bad system. In regard to a system that says the gospel is purely indicative, consider the following scriptures:

Acts 3:19
Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,

Acts 8:22
Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart.

Acts 20:21
I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus.

Acts 26:20
First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.

And last, but certainly not least:

1 Peter 4:17
For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Take note that in many of these verses concerning the gospel, they not only encompass the imperative, but the imperative precedes the indicative, so you can skip the whole “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event “ routine. And if a literal approach to scripture is not applicable, why do you employ such to prove the latter when other such verses state that one side of the case?

In light of this shocking discovery, how can I even face my Arminian son-in-law? But it’s ok. I think all true Christians evangelize like Armenians and pray like Calvinist. Actually, I prefer the Calminians [that word did not pass spell check for some reason], they know how to party [an idiom for evangelism]. In the mean time, Professor Horton please phone home, I have some questions for you that could be bad news.

paul

The apostle Paul dealt with some pretty straightforward antinomianism in his day. Apparently, some not only taught that Christians were not obligated to obey the law, but rampant sinning served the gospel by multiplying grace! [Romans 6:1, 15] Deception nor error are always that blatant. Today, we have a form of antinomianism that says the following: “ By all means we uphold the law of God!, absolutely! The law of God must be obeyed!, and all of God’s people say amen.

Now let’s talk about how they believe the law of God is upheld. You see, as a Christian, you are still not obligated to keep the law, in a matter of fact, if you even try to, you are in a works salvation. Huh? They believe that Christians should obey God’s law but if they try to it’s works “salvation?” Yes. How can that be? Well, Christ does it all for you. Proponents of this view do not believe Christians are “born again” so to speak. We are still dead, the only life in us is the indwelling Christ.

But they also believe that we did “die” with Christ and therefore are dead to sin, [Romans 6:2-4] but a remnant of sin remains in us from being formally of the sinful “realm.” Though there is still sin in us, [I will explain this sin and how it operates in us later according to them] they believe the “flesh” is not sin in us, but a sinful realm. The other realm is the realm of the Spirit. Both of these exert pressure on us and at any given time we are “yielding” to one or the other. Therefore, they refute a traditional view of a warfare between our “flesh” [the remnant of sin that remains in us] and our redeemed spirit with the necessary help and dependence of the indwelling Holy Spirit of whom we are sealed till the day of redemption.

Therefore, we are not only dead and unable to do anything because we are dead, but we are helpless against the “realm” of sin because it is a “law” like the law of gravity [Romans 7:21]. We ourselves cannot do anything against sin anymore than we can overcome gravity. Therefore, we are also dead to the law [Romans 7:4].

However, if you would challenge them by saying, “are you saying that we are not ‘born again?’ They would say, “of course not! Of course we are born again!” But what they really mean is that we are born again in respect to the fact that the only life in us is the indwelling Christ. Contemporary antinomianism is fraught with this kind of deceptive double speak.

Their primary proof text is Galatians 2:20;
“I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

The believer no longer lives, he is dead and can therefore do nothing. Christ does all the work through us. Any effort on our part is works salvation.

This is not new. J.C. Ryle contended with the exact same teaching in the 19th century and cited work by Samuel Rutherford who also contended with the same error two centuries before. Samuel Rutherford specifically called it out as antinomianism. The teaching has recently made a comeback around 1980, mostly through Reformed groups. It is the very idea propagated in “How People Change” by Paul David Tripp [especially pages 64 and 65] and various writings by Micheal Horton.

What J.C. Ryle wrote in regard to this follows this paragraph. Stay with it till the end to get my main point for he starts out with the concern of how this teaching is an unbalanced view of the Trinity as well. It’s interesting to note that antinomian teaching is often accompanied by a distorted view of the Trinity and this is also reflected in Johns three epistles. The following is from Ryles introduction of 20 letters on holiness:

(5) In the fifth place, is it wise to use the language which is often used in the present day about the doctrine of “Christ in us”? I doubt it. Is not this doctrine often exalted to a position which it does not occupy in Scripture? I am afraid that it is.

That the true believer is one with Christ and Christ in him, no careful reader of the New Testament will think of denying for a moment. There is, no doubt, a mystical union between Christ and the believer. With Him we died, with Him we were buried, with Him we rose again, with Him we sit in heavenly places. We have five plain texts where we are distinctly taught that Christ is “in us.” ( Romans 8:10; Galatians 2:20; 4:19; Ephesians 3:17; Colossians 3:11.) But we must be careful that we understand what we mean by the expression. That “Christ dwells in our hearts by faith,” and carries on His inward work by His Spirit, is clear and plain. But if we mean to say that beside, and over, and above this there is some mysterious indwelling of Christ in a believer, we must be careful what we are about. Unless we take care, we shall find ourselves ignoring the work of the Holy Spirit. We shall be forgetting that in the Divine economy of man’s salvation election is the special work of God the Father–atonement, mediation, and intercession, the special work of God the Son–and sanctification, the special work of God the Holy Spirit. We shall be forgetting that our Lord said, when He went away, that He would send us another Comforter, who should “abide with us” forever, and, as it were, take His Place. ( John 14:16.) In short, under the idea that we are honoring Christ, we shall find that we are dishonoring His special and peculiar gift–the Holy Spirit. Christ, no doubt, as God, is everywhere–in our hearts, in heaven, in the place where two or three are meet together in His name. But we really must remember that Christ, as our risen Head and High Priest, is specially at God’s right hand interceding for us until He comes the second time: and that Christ carries on His work in the hearts of His people by the special work of His Spirit, whom He promised to send when He left the world. ( John 15:26.) A comparison of the ninth and tenth verses of the eighth chapter of Romans seems to me to show this plainly. It convinces me that “Christ in us” means Christ in us “by His Spirit.” Above all, the words of St. John are most distinct and express: “Hereby we know that He abides in us by the Spirit which He has given us.” ( 1 John 3:24.)

In saying all this, I hope no one will misunderstand me. I do not say that the expression, “Christ in us” is unscriptural. But I do say that I see great danger of giving extravagant and unscriptural importance to the idea contained in the expression; and I do fear that many use it now-a-days without exactly knowing what they mean, and unwittingly, perhaps, dishonor the mighty work of the Holy Spirit. If any reader think that I am needlessly scrupulous about the point, I recommend to their notice a curious book by Samuel Rutherford (author of the well-known letters), called “The Spiritual Antichrist.” They will see there that two centuries ago the wildest heresies arose out of an extravagant teaching of this very doctrine of the “indwelling of Christ” in believers. They will find that Saltmarsh, and Dell, and Towne, and other false teachers, against whom good Samuel Rutherford contended, began with strange notions of “Christ in us,” and then proceeded to build on the doctrine antinomianism, and fanaticism of the worst description and vilest tendency. They maintained that the separate, personal life of the believer was so completely gone, that it was Christ living in him who repented, and believed, and acted! The root of this huge error was a forced and unscriptural interpretation of such texts as “I live: yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” ( Galatians 2:20.) And the natural result of it was that many of the unhappy followers of this school came to the comfortable conclusion that believers were not responsible, whatever they might do! Believers, forsooth, were dead and buried; and only Christ lived in them, and undertook everything for them! The ultimate consequence was, that some thought they might sit still in a carnal security, their personal accountableness being entirely gone, and might commit any kind of sin without fear! Let us never forget that truth, distorted and exaggerated, can become the mother of the most dangerous heresies. When we speak of “Christ being in us,” let us take care to explain what we mean. I fear some neglect this in the present day.

Notice what Ryle specifically says about the teaching of that day:

They maintained that the separate, personal life of the believer was so completely gone, that it was Christ living in him who repented, and believed, and acted! The root of this huge error was a forced and unscriptural interpretation of such texts as “I live: yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” ( Galatians 2:20.)
This is exactly what antinomians of this day teach, except most among reformed groups do not have the fanatical appearance of some in Ryles day. Outwardly, they will appear orderly and probably abide by civil law like most common people. However, they will be all but completely self willed in regard to the finer instruction of scripture, especially New Testament directives and doctrine. This really comes out in regard to biblical leadership in the home. Many reformed groups teach a co-leadership marriage and mock women who hold to a traditional view of submission to their husbands.

Furthermore, their teachings concerning the scriptures are all but totally DESCRIPTIVE with no instruction or emphasis on biblical imperatives. This still gives them an orthodox appearance with plenty of biblical material to wax elegant with. Modern day antinomians continually deride “living by a list”, “do’s and dont’s”, “moralism” ect, which also gives them additional material for teaching and is sometimes their ongoing major emphasis. Reformed antinomian teaching is often difficult to identify until you begin to watch for biblical application of imperatives. This should not be the summation of any solid biblical teaching, but present day reformed antinomian teaching and preaching will be all but completely void of it. Primarily, it denies the necessity of practical application in regard to the scriptures or any effort to obey biblical imperatives.

Also, though I hesitated to wear anybody out with too much information, the present day reformed antinomian distortion of the Trinity by over emphasizing the Son is worthy of mention and apes those that J.C. Ryle contended with in his day. Others have noted this as well. Barry E. Horner in “Future Israel”, states the following on page 192:

“But I must carefully assert, in upholding a Trinitarian perspective in regard to the headship of the Father, that it is possible for such an understanding of Christocentricity to be misguided. This is not an insignificant point since it is common today, especially within Reformed Christianity as Thomas Smail pointed out in ‘The Forgotten Father,’ for an incorrect prominence to be given to Jesus Christ [as though impossible to challenge] that results in biblical distortion.”

Ryle cites the other side of the equation with his concern for the diminishing of the Holt Spirit as well concerning the antinomian “Christ in us” teaching of his day.

Lastly, the Bible does not teach that we are spiritually dead after salvation. The Apostle Paul instructs us to put on the “new man” “created” after the likeness of God, or as the ESV puts it:

“and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”
Ephesians 4:24

When was a “new” self “created?” At salvation, obviously. Paul then tells believers how to put on that new life via several imperatives in the following verses.

Furthermore, Spiritual warfare is between our redeemed spirit, The Holy Spirit and the “flesh”, that mysterious place where residual sin from the former life resides and wages war against us and the Spirit:

“Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul,”
1Peter 2:11

“For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.”
Galatians 5:17

Note we have three personalities / nouns here: The flesh, The Spirit, and the redeemed part of you that wants to do good. The Flesh and The Spirit are not realms, they indwell the believer:

“but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.”
Romans 7:23

“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.”
Romans 8:9

This is a very slick form of antinomianism that is very difficult to see through. In the next part, I will reveal their Gospel and how it uses one imperative in a passive form to relinquish Christians from upholding the precepts of God. This is a matter of serious import, for Romans 8:3,4

“For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.”

paul

Without a doubt, one of the major attractions of Gospel Sanctification is it’s so darn easy. I completely understand why it is so attractive to pastors as well. The following is a breakdown of how it makes ministry as easy as 1,2,3:

1. Teaching and Preaching:

Great news for pastors. No more laboring in the text with word study, historical background, writer intent, and cross reference. Why would you?, every verse in the Bible is about the gospel! That was easy! You can even get on the Internet and surf for “gospel centered” outlines for many Old and New Testament books. You can also exclude the need for determining “practical application” which is nothing more than “dispensational works of the law.” All you have to do now is show forth the picture of the gospel that the text is illuminating. By the listener “gazing” at this “gospel narrative” and exulting over it, he is changed from “glory to glory.”

John MacArthur complained in “Truth War” that no one wants to labor in the word anymore. C’mon Mac, get a grip.

Also, no more pesky challenges from the congregation about what you teach. The theory behind Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics is so complex, who could ever understand it? Besides, the Lord may show 25 different teachers 25 different pictures of the gospel from the same text,
nothing else is even the issue. It’s all good bro, just chill.

2. Counseling:

No problem. Even as the counselee that you have never met is on his way, you already know what their problem is: sin [anything that you value more than Christ at any given time].“Gospel centered” counseling only has one goal; determine the idols of the heart that have replaced Christ and therefore have led to the counselee being *unhappy.* Unhappiness equals idols. As you listen to the counselee talk, you are looking for idols in the heart because “from the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.” Once you determine the idols, you only need to show the glory of Christ and his gospel that replaces that idol. That was easy! [never mind what Jeremiah said about our inability to know the heart].

What about counselees from other churches? That’s even easier. They aren’t saved because they have probably been sitting under Grammatical Historical teaching that doesn’t use the scriptures for it’s only intended purpose, the gospel. If they aren’t preaching the gospel to themselves every day, they are not living by the gospel and therefore could not be saved. Again, the gospel is the answer. That was easy!

What about all of those pesky peripheral issues like the responsibility of others in the situation? Again, no problem. EVERY, I repeat, EVERY circumstance in life that involves others or otherwise, only has the purpose of exposing the idols of the heart [God's “heat” on your life to expose whats in the heart].
If you didn’t have any idols in your heart, you wouldn’t even care what other people did to you. Issues of righteous indignation and justice are dead on arrival. Any conversation regarding the acts of others or circumstances is “BLAME SHIFTING.” It’s all about your wicked heart.

Confession of sin is the vital issue. Acts of sin reveal the idols in your heart that can then be dealt with. This is called a “reorientation of the desires of the heart” [I'm still foggy on how that works, even after hundreds of hours of study in the area of Gospel Sanctification]. If you remember, Job’s three friends tried to push the easy button on him as well. “C’mon Job, we’ve been sittin here three day’s, if you would just confess your sins, this will all be over and we can go home [that's a heavy paraphrase].

Marriage Counseling:

Again, figure out the husbands idols and figure out the wifes idols, and your done. That was easy!

3. Disputes In The Church:

No problem. James said that quarrels are caused by “desires that battle within you.” Ask each party involved in the dispute the following “x-ray” question [questions that reveal idols of the heart by the answers to the questions]: “what did you want.” The answers to this x-ray question will reveal what each party wanted more than Christ [idol of the heart]. Deal with those idols and your done. The other party will then not even care that the other party hired a contract killer.

What about disputes with the leadership? Hey buddy, they are administering the “gospel”, how dare you obstruct the gospel! That was easy.

Do you hope that I deliberately exaggerated in this post to make a point? Me too. However, due to my first hand experience with “gospel centered” counseling, I fear my points are not as exaggerated as I would like them to be.

Point in case, I know of a young missionary who was doing ministry in a particular place in the world that is the epitome of evil and darkness beyond your wildest imagination. Other than his wife, they had very little face to face support in the region. In my mind, many different issues could have come into play in regard to his emotional collapse while in the field. Namely, in that part of the region, demonic oppression could defiantly not be ruled out. However, he was put into the care of individuals who were proponents of Gospel Sanctification and all of it’s “redemptive” theory in regard to ministry, counseling not excluded. They would not discuss any peripheral issues at all, those were all “heat” issues to reveal heart sin. In this very dyer and complex situation, sin and supposed idols of the heart were the only issue on the table. At one point, a “counselor” slammed his fist on his desk and yelled: “we WILL find sin in your life.” The best information I now have is that this individual was traumatized by the counseling and is no longer following the lord.

Here is an important point: In the day and age we live in, you had better understand the presupposition behind the teaching and counsel you are receiving. Just listening to the product doesn’t cut it. Gospel Sanctification is clothed in the loftiest of spiritual lingo along with many other errant teachings that will effect your life in profound fashion. Secondly, do I believe Gospel Sanctification is a strong temptation in our “get it fast and easy” culture? Yes I do, and to the detriment of many.

paul

The following article is a typical explanation of Gospel Centered hermeneutics,” also known as  Christocentric  and Redemptive Historical hermeneutics as well.

My thoughts are prefaced by *

In our time, living under the law may assume the form of biblicism. Many suppose that the evangelical faith stands or falls on the matter of biblical inerrancy meaning that the very letter of Holy Scripture is without any error in everything it affirms, including theology, history, ethics, geography, biology and chronology.

*The author begins by erecting a  straw man argument. It is not simply the matter of the Bible it’s self being inerrant, it is a matter of believing that God has revealed himself to mankind and had it recorded in a book by men as they were moved and guided by the Holy Spirit [2Peter 1:20,21]. Furthermore, since God chose to reveal himself in this way, it only stands to reason that he would preserve the meaning of his word [Matthew 5:18].

Plainly, the Christian faith does stand on what God has revealed about himself and all of the implications thereof. Therefore, to some degree, the Christian faith would stand on the authority and accuracy of what God has recorded about himself. However, not primarily in regard to the things the author mentions above, but rather what pertains to “life and godliness” as stated in 2Peter 1:3. This passage says we are granted his power through “knowledge of him.“ Let me also take opportunity to set up another point, Peter makes it clear that the scriptures are sufficient for two separate things: “life” and “godliness.”

This is what a “Biblicist” or “scripturist” is, not the description offered above. In addition, scripturist  would not fear following the Bible for purposes of  duplicating “godliness” and seeking answers for “life,” thinking this would make them legalistic or followers of the law in order to obtain salvation.*

The great danger of biblicism is that, instead of being used solely in the service of the gospel, the Bible becomes a book of rules about many other issues.

*The author is clearly in error here. Nowhere does it say in the scriptures that the Bible is to be used “solely in the service of the gospel.” In a matter of fact, our verse in 2Peter clearly states the purpose of scripture: it’s all we need for “life’ and “godliness.” Furthermore, 1Timothy 3:16 gives additional information regarding the proper use of scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2 Timothy 3:17
so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Matthew chapters 5-7 are an instructional discourse by Christ himself concerning kingdom living and says little about the “gospel.”

Also, Biblicist don’t believe the bible is a “book of rules”, they believe it is what 2Peter and 1Timothy  says it is, that’s why we call ourselves Biblicist. Our idea’s about the  proper use of scripture comes from the mouth of God and no other source [“God breathed” 2Timothy 3:16]. Certainly, it is our final authority on what the “gospel” is and how to present it, but the whole Bible is not about this one aspect of  knowledge concerning God. Certainly, if this was the case, the apostle Paul failed to make that clear in his writings and certainly passed on the opportunity to make it clear to Timothy.*

Christians may become enslaved to the Bible just as the Jews became enslaved to the Torah, their Holy Scripture (John 10:34,35). Just as the Jews barricaded themselves behind the letter of the Torah to oppose Jesus, so we may easily barricade ourselves behind the letter of a supposedly inerrant Scripture to oppose the gospel’s festival of freedom.

*The “Jews” hid behind a twisting of scripture, not scripture it’s self. And by the way, it was primarily the Pharisees that did this and not the Jews in general. They were guilty of twisting the word of God into their traditions:

Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!” Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death. But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ he is not to ‘honor his father ‘ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:

” ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.”[Matthew 15:1-9].

Obeying God’s instruction in regard to kingdom living as documented in the Bible is not the issue for Biblicism. A true Biblicist does not twist the scriptures into traditions and rules made up by men.

Furthermore, as Christians, it is not our goal to partake in a “festival of freedom,” It is our goal to “please him [2Corinthians 5:9].”  In the process, it may be festive or it may not be festive [John 21:18-19]. Though freedom in Christ is important to the Biblicist, his main goal is to please Christ, and the God breathed scriptures are the guide for that endeavor.*

There can be a false faith in the bible. In the proper spiritual sense faith is an act of real worship which should be rendered solely to the Creator (John 9:35-38).

*John 9:35-38 is an account of a man who worshipped Christ when he was here in person. This does not mean that worshipping Christ according to what the Bible says in the absence of the physical Christ is synonymous with bowing down and worshipping a book of stone. The reading of the word will often incite us to worship the Christ in “spirit” and “truth” [John 4:23] for “thy word is truth” [John 17:17].*

 Saving faith is not faith in the Bible (for even the Christ-denying Pharisees trusted in the Bible John 5:39) but faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:22-26).

Saving faith comes  from the word of God:
Romans 10:17
So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

*Faith does come from faith and belief in God’s word, and it just so happens that it is documented in bibles. So, does faith come from the leather and paper of a bible? Of course not, but it does come from the words written in the Bible when heard by individuals [along with the illumination of the Holy Spirit].

Furthermore, in John 5:39, Jesus is referring to an erroneous assessment of scripture, not scripture it’s self. Jesus was referring to a twisting and misuse of scripture that did not include a proper view of their Messiah. This would seem somewhat obvious. Especially in context.*

While Catholics have been particularly susceptible to ecclesiology — the worship of the church — Protestants have been disposed toward bibliolatry — the worship of the Bible.

*Making the Bible a “light unto our path [Psalm 119:105]” is not worshiping what God says apart from who God is. If we love him, we will keep his commandments [John 14:15].*

The purpose of all Scripture is to bear witness to Christ (John 5:39; 20:31).

*Gospel centered proponents often cite scriptures like John 5:39 to make the case that ALL scripture is about Christ with the added and supposed synonym, “gospel” in every verse and contextual meaning. In this verse, and many others like it, Christ is saying that these individuals have failed to see his role in making salvation possible as explained and proclaimed in scripture. This is not to the exclusion of his instruction for living a life pleasing to the Father and elements of discipleship [Matthew 28:19,20].*
 
The Bible in itself is not the Word of God. The Word of God is a person (John 1:1).

*Regardless, until God speaks, man has no life line to God [John 6:63, Matthew 4:4]. Jesus said we are “sanctified” by truth and that God’s “word” is truth [John 17:17]. That truth and those words are to be found in what we call the Bible. They are the words of God written and documented in books by chosen men as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit himself. The Bible has a word for that : SCRIPTURE.  Scripture is the recognized book form of  GOD’S BREATH [2 Timothy 3:16]. This is an unwitting devaluation of a book written by the Holy Spirit to “fully” equip God’ s people for “every good work.” 
I will pause here to ask a question that could be ask of hundreds of Bible verses:  I f God’s word was only for the purpose of equipping God’s people for the  “gospel”, why wouldn’t Paul plainly say that here instead of  “every good work?” *

Neither does the Bible have life, power or light in itself any more than did the Jewish Torah. These  attributes may be ascribed to the Bible only by virtue of its relationship to Him who is Word, Life, Power and Light. Life is not in the book, as the Pharisees supposed, but only in the Man of the book (John 5:39).

*Again, we are not merely talking about the “bible”, 2 Timothy 3:15 calls it the “SACRED” “WRITINGS.”  In fact, the problem with the Pharisees was not that they saw the power of God in the Bible [scriptures], it was the exact opposite, they could not see the power of God because they were in error  concerning the scriptures [Matthew 22:29, Mark 12:24]. Also, Peter considered the scriptures  a better testimony than the display of Christ’ glory and power at the transfiguration [2Peter1:16-20]. If Peter said that the written word is “more sure” than the power , life, light and majesty that he witnessed first hand concerning Christ at the transfiguration, what does that say about this authors attitude toward the written word?*

The Bible is therefore to be valued because of its testimony to Jesus Christ. The Bible is absolutely trustworthy and reliable for the purpose it was given.

*The author here says that the Bible is only valued and reliable when it speaks of Christ [and his gospel]. He also says that it was only given for that purpose.
Of course Christ is very central to redemptive history and the Bible. But yet, as anyone would agree, baptism is a very significant representation of the gospel. Christ himself says to do so in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19]. The gospel is just as much about the other two members of the Trinity as it is Christ. Without God, there is no election. Without the Holy Spirit, there is no new birth or sanctification [John 3].
Christ also says that his word is a teaching manual for discipleship [Matthew 28:20]. Once again, here is another verse of scripture where the Holy Spirit has opportunity to say  ALL of scripture is about the gospel rather than “teaching them to observe ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED.”*

 It is designed to make us “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15), not wise on such subjects as science, history and geography, which it is our responsibility to learn through general revelation.

*The author does not quote the next verse that continues the line of thought to include other items besides the gospel:
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

So, besides the gospel, it is a God breathed manual for “training in righteousness” as well. Maybe better put: a manual for learning how to love God [John 14:21, Luke 10:27].*

“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.

*His explanation of a practical hermeneutic when a  written word is actually a person, might be helpful: In order to see all of the Bible as gospel, we need to be “apprehended” by the Spirit who “lives in the gospel.” This then enables us to “judge the letter of scripture.”  Ooooooooo”k.”*

“…Christian biblicism is no different from Jewish legalism. It is the old way of the letter, not the new way of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6). Jesus and Paul declare that apart from the Spirit we cannot understand the truth (John 16:13; I Cor. 2:14). This means that unless we are caught up in the Spirit of the gospel, we cannot understand or use the Bible correctly. Apart from the gospel the Bible is letter (gramma), not Spirit (pneuma). “The letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom” (II Cor. 3:6,17).” — Robert Brinsmead.

*The last paragraph of the quote simply says that the Spirit only illuminates the word  when the word is seen thru the lens of the gospel. But this is not what Jesus said  concerning his problem with the legalist crowd. He said “you do error concerning the scriptures.” Once again, why would he not have said: “you do error concerning the gospel.”*

paul

“How, then, can we behold the glory of Christ? We need, firstly, a spiritual understanding of his glory as revealed in Scripture. Secondly, we need to think much about him if we wish to enjoy him fully (1 Pet. 1:8). If we are satisfied with vague ideas about him we shall find no transforming power communicated to us. But when we cling wholeheartedly to him and our minds are filled with thoughts of him and we constantly delight ourselves in him, then spiritual power will flow from him to purify our hearts, increase our holiness, strengthen our graces, and sometimes fill us ‘with joy inexpressible and full of glory.’”

- John Owen, The Glory of Christ, abridged and made easy by R. J. K. Law (Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 115.

“All change comes from deepening your understanding of the salvation of Christ and living out of the changes that understanding creates in your heart. Faith in the gospel re-structures our motivations, our self-understanding, our identity, and our view of the world. Behavioral compliance to rules without heart-change will be superficial and fleeting.”

- Timothy Keller, The Prodigal God (new York, NY: Dutton, 2008), 121.

“Truth will readily be exchanged for error when no more sweetness and joy is to be found in it than is to be found in error. When we find any of the good truths of the gospel coming home to our souls with power, giving us gladness of heart and transforming us into the image and likeness of it, the Holy Spirit is then at his work. He is pouring out his oil.”

- John Owen, Communion with God, abridged by R.J.K. Law (Carlisle, Pa.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 189.

Some 10 years ago, while listening to Jerry Bridges speak at a church, I heard him say this: “We must preach the Gospel to ourselves everyday.” Must we? No. I do not believe the scriptures  tell us to lay again the foundation of the Gospel everyday for sanctification purposes. Not  surprisingly, he mentions in one of his latest books that he used to hold a passive view of sanctification that necessarily goes along with Gospel Sanctification [ "The Discipline of Grace" page 134].  That is, we are still dead and all works of sanctification are done through “Christ in us.” It is Christ working through us, we do nothing. What was surprising: Bridges now rejects this veiw and writes against it while presenting his new view; Enablement Sanctification.

I would agree with his new view just about a 100%. He fudges a little bit when he bemoans the possibility that people will practice discipline in “their own will.” I do not know how one would even know whether it was his will or God’s will or if the two can even be separated within the believer. Suffice to say, it’s probably our own will enabled by God. His answer is to encouraged people to pray for dependence on God to remind ourselves who we depend on. I certainly wouldn’t argue with that. The rest of the  book is pretty much the same old Gospel Sanctification stuff, except Bridges is soooo much more tolerable than Paul Tripp and Michael Horton. Horton’s new book, “Christless Christianity”, is an annoying treatise on 600 different ways to say: “let go and let God.”  I think there may also be around 200 different ways to say “Pharisee” as well.

However, Bridges is to be praised for his subtitle: God’s Role And Our Role In The Pursuit of Holiness.” This is a subject that is woefully neglected in today’s church. His stated adjustment regarding  his view of sanctification, as well as his deep concern for the error of his old view is welcome, even though the adjustment is an awkward fit with the rest of the book.  Also, it is well worth noting what he said  drove his  initial position: it seemed “ more spiritual.” Bingo. This is the appeal of Gospel Sanctification, it’s new, it’s easy, and seems lofty compared to the other views.

The following is the excerpt from pages 134-141. It provides an excellent biblical view of our role in the sanctification process:

THE PASSIVE APPROACH

We need to learn this scriptural principle that the Holy Spirit works in us to enable us to live lives pleasing to God. He does not do the work for us; rather, He enables us to do the work. We often use the expression “Let the Lord live His life through me.” I am personally uncomfortable with this expression because it suggests a passivity on our part. He does not live His life through me. Rather, as I depend on Him, He enables me to live a life pleasing to Him.

Some years ago when I was following this more passive approach, which did indeed seem more spiritual to me at the time, I was struggling to love a Christian brother. One evening God really dealt with me about my lack of love, and I sensed God was saying to me through a thought planted in my mind, “If I love him, can you?” I responded, “Lord, I can’t, but I’m willing for You to love him through me.”

What happened? Over time my attitude toward this brother did change. In fact, we became good friends. Did Jesus then love him through me? No, He enabled me to love the man. We are not passive in the pursuit of holiness. We are the ones who love. We are the ones who clothe ourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience (Colossians 3:12). But we do this in utter dependence on Him who gives us strength.

This is far more than an issue of mere semantics. It is a dif­ference in our understanding of how God works in us. The essence of the passive view (in fairness to those who teach this view of sanctification, they would call it a “faith” approach, not a passive approach) is summed up in a statement that goes something like this: Man’s part is to trust; God’s part is to work. The believer can do nothing but trust, while the God in whom he or she trusts does the work.

It is the idea that we can do nothing but trust that is particularly troubling to me. I believe that the psalmist — and Nehemiah and Paul — would say, “Man’s part is to trust and work. God’s part is to enable the man or woman to do the work.” Or perhaps it is more helpful to say, “Our part is to work, but to do so in reliance upon God to enable us to work.” God’s work does not make our effort unnecessary, but rather makes it effective. Paul did not say, “Christ shows contentment through me.” Rather, he said, “I have learned to be content through Him who gives me strength.”

I am loath to take issue with many godly Christians who believe and teach this more passive approach. I do so with great reluctance and, I trust, with equal humility and love. But I embraced this teaching for several years, and with great dif­ficulty came to what I now believe to be the biblical teaching on dependence and responsibility

One of the Puritan writers who helped me most to understand the biblical relationship of dependence and dis­cipline was John Owen. Because Owen’s seventeenth-century writing style was somewhat ponderous, let me paraphrase a few sentences from him on the relationship of grace (God’s divine enablement) and our responsibility, which he calls our duty:

“Let us consider what regard we ought to have to our own duty and to the grace of God. Some would separate these things as inconsistent. If holiness be our duty they would say, there is no room for grace; and if it be the result of grace there is no place for duty But our duty and God’s grace are nowhere opposed in the matter of sanctification; for the one absolutely supposes the other. We cannot perform our duty without the grace of God; nor does God give his grace for any other purpose than that we may perform our duty”

There is no question that we are responsible to pursue holiness with all the intensity that the word pursue implies. Every moral imperative in the Bible addresses itself to our responsibility to discipline ourselves unto godliness. We are not just to turn it all over to the Lord and let Him live His life through us. Rather, we are to love one another; we are to put to death the misdeeds of the body; we are to put off the old man and put on the new man.

If we are to make any progress in the pursuit of holiness, we must assume our responsibility to discipline or train ourselves. But we are to do all this in total dependence on the Holy Spirit to work in us and strengthen us with the strength that is in Christ.

Sometimes we don’t sense that we are experiencing His strength. Instead we experience deep, agonizing failure. We may even weep over our sins and wonder why the Holy Spirit doesn’t come to our aid and strengthen us against the onslaught of temptation. We identify with Paul when he said, “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do” (Romans 7:15).

Why doesn’t the Holy Spirit always strengthen us? The answer may be one or more of several reasons. He may be letting us see the sinfulness of our own hearts. Or He may be causing us to realize how weak we are in ourselves and how dependent on Him we really are. Perhaps He is curbing a tendency toward spiritual pride and causing us to grow in humility Whatever the reason, which we may never know, our responsibility is to utterly depend on Him. He sovereignly and with infinite wisdom determines how best to respond to our dependence.

THE SELF-DISCIPLINE APPROACH

Despite my concern about the so-called passive approach to holiness, I am just as concerned about the self-discipline approach. There is no doubt that disciplined people, both believers and unbelievers, can effect change in themselves., Even as I work on this chapter, I am reading an excellent secular book on personal growth. I have no doubt that people who apply the principles expounded by the author see change in their lives. I hope to see some myself.

A major temptation in the self-discipline approach to holiness, however, is to rely on a regimen of spiritual disciplines instead of on the Holy Spirit. I believe. in spiritual disciplines. I seek to practice them, and we are going to be considering some that especially relate to the pursuit of holiness in the remaining chapters of this book. But those disciplines are not the source of our spiritual strength. The Lord Jesus Christ is, and it is the ministry of the Holy Spirit to apply His strength in our lives. To paraphrase Paul’s statement in i Corinthians 3:7, we can plant and we can water, but we cannot make things grow. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

The truth is, we must plant and we must water if we are to make progress in holiness, but only the Holy Spirit can change us more and more into the likeness of Jesus. Our problem is that we tend to depend upon our planting and our watering rather than on the Lord.

Because Paul used a metaphor from farming — planting and watering — let’s pursue that illustration. In the business 

of farming there are certain things farmers must do, but there are two things they cannot do. We can chart what they can and must do versus what they cannot do in the following manner:

CAN AND MUST DO                            CANNOT DO

Plow                                                          Make Grow

Plant                                                          Control Weather

Fertilize

Irrigate

Cultivate

 Harvest

There are six things farmers must do and only two things they cannot do. They can even to a degree circumvent the weather by irrigating in case of drought. But the one thing they absolutely cannot do is the most critical of all. Without the life that makes things grow, all their disciplines of farming are useless. Now typical farmers, unless they are godly believers, will concentrate on the things they must do and will tend to take for granted the life in the seed that makes it grow. They will put all their confidence in the performance of their duties, not in God, who makes things grow As far as they are concerned, their success depends on themselves.

As in the case of farming, God has ordained certain disciplines or practices that are necessary in order to grow in holiness. We must observe these or we will not grow, just as farmers will not produce a crop if they do not perform their duties. There is one thing, however, we cannot do. We cannot make ourselves grow. But just as typical farmers put their confidence in the performance of their duties, so we believers who take seriously our responsibility for holiness tend to put our confidence in the performance of our disciplines. Like farmers, we take for granted the spiritual life that makes us grow.

John Owen is helpful to us at this point also, and again for the convenience of the reader, I will paraphrase. Owen wrote, “The actual aid and internal operation of the Spirit of God is necessary to produce every holy act of our minds, wills, and emotions in every duty whatsoever. Notwithstanding the power or ability that believers have received by the principle of new life implanted at salvation, they still stand in need of the divine enablement of the Holy Spirit in every single act or duty toward God.”⁴ So even though we have been given a new heart and the principle of spiritual life, that new life needs to be continually nourished and sustained by the Holy Spirit. It does not operate on its own.

Jonathan Edwards, the great philosopher-theologian (and a pastor as well of colonial America, compiled a series of seventy resolutions to govern his own spiritual disciplines and conduct. Talk about spiritual discipline! Edwards’ resolutions would make most of our present-day disciplines look like spiritual kindergarten. But at the beginning of his list of written resolutions he wrote these words: “Being sensible that I am unable to do any thing without God’s help, I do humbly entreat him, by his grace, to enable me to keep these Resolutions, so far as they are agreeable to his will, for Christ’s sake.”⁵ Edwards was disciplined, but he was also dependent.

I’m sure those of us who tend toward the self-discipline school of holiness agree with John Owen and Jonathan Edwards that we are dependent on the enabling power of the Holy Spirit. We believe it and we give lip service to it, but do we practice it? Do we each day and throughout the day acknowledge our dependence on Him?

Let me begin with the same introduction from the first post on Ryle’s 20 letter volume:

 “During the 19^thcentury, several major doctrines arose in regard to sanctification which created much controversy among evangelicals of that time. It prompted one of the best known theologians of that time, JC Ryle, to write a 20 letter volume on “Scriptural Holiness.” It is considered to be one of the best works on Christian living ever written.”

 In his introduction, Ryle outlines 7 elements of erroneous teachings in regard to sanctification which were prevalent during his time. In the first post, I address number 5, Ryle’s concerns about “Christ in us” being exalted to a position in Scripture “that it does not occupy.” Ryle goes on to explain how erroneous interpretations of Galations 2:20 led to this error:

 “They maintained that the separate, personal life of the believer was so completely gone, that it was Christ living in him who repented, and believed, and acted! The root of this huge error was a forced and unscriptural interpretation of such texts as “I live: yet not I, but Christ lives in me.” ( Galatians 2:20.) And the natural result of it was that many of the unhappy followers of this school came to the comfortable conclusion that believers were not responsible, whatever they might do! Believers, forsooth, were dead and buried; and only Christ lived in them, and undertook everything for them! “

This is exactly what Paul Tripp propagates on pages 63-65 in “How People Change.” By torturing selected verses from Colossians ch1 and ch2, he makes the erroneous point that believers are still dead, and “When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” He actually uses pre-salvation scripture to teach post salvation truth.

In his first element, Ryle addresses the erroneous teaching of his time that made very little or no distinction between justification [salvation] and sanctification. This resulted in a “faith alone” sanctification. Gospel Sanctification only adds “deep repentance” to sanctification by faith only. Likewise, Gospel Sanctification make no distinction either. The same Gospel that saved you also sanctifies you, hence, “Gospel Sanctification.” JC Ryle addresses the problem:

“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone.” * ( James 2:17.) I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage “works” as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”

Ryle here complains that even though the proponents of false sanctification in his day taught sanctification by faith alone, they denied a rejection of the necessity of works. Of course they did, without mentioning that they believe it’s Christ doing all the work. Ryle goes on to explain his concern in regard to those who teach an absence of our own “exertion” in the sanctification process:

“But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith. The very same Apostle who says in one place, “The life that I live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God,” says in another place, “I fight–I run–I keep under my body;” and in other places, “Let us cleanse ourselves–let us labor, let us lay aside every weight.” ( Galatians 2:20; 1 Corinthians 9:26; 2 Corinthians 7:1; Hebrews 4:11; Hebrews 12:1.) Moreover, the Scriptures nowhere teach us that faith sanctifies us in the same sense, and in the same manner, that faith justifies us! Justifying faith is a grace that “works not,” but simply trusts, rests, and leans on Christ. ( Romans 4:5.)”

Ryles concerns are a mirror image of what proponents of Gospel Sanctification teach today. In a matter of fact, books like “Christless Christianity” by Michael Horton teach that anything at all that is horizontal in the Christian life is nothing but “moralism.”

In Ryles second element, he addresses the onslaught against practical application in his day:

(2) I ask, in the second place, whether it is wise to make so little as some appear to do, comparatively, of the many practical exhortations to holiness in daily life which are to be found in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the latter part of most of St. Paul’s epistles? Is it according to the proportion of God’s Word? I doubt it.

The shrill call against practical application by those who teach Gospel Sanctification is relentless. Paul Tripp trashes practical application of the scriptures on pages 25-26 in the above mentioned book. On page 27, he even discredits biblical thinking or putting off sinful thinking and replacing it with biblical thinking. I comment on this in another post:

“Paul David Tripp, a propagator of modern day GS, even refers to Biblical Thinking as a technique that is not sufficient for real change [page 27, "How People Change"]. In essence, he plainly say’s in his book that 2 Corinthinas 10:4-6 is unbiblical! “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 [page 27].” When you warn readers that even your own efforts to change your thinking to the mind of Christ is a work that eclipse’s the person and work of Christ, that’s pretty darn passive! Also note that the crux of the matter in Tripp’s mind is omitting the person and work of Christ as Savior. “

In other words, any effort on our part at all is denying Christ as Savior, because sanctification and salvation are exactly and absolutely synonymous.

In Ryle’s 7th element, he addresses the teaching of “yielding” in his day:

“In the seventh and last place, is it wise to teach believers that they ought not to think so much of fighting and struggling against sin, but ought rather to “yield themselves to God,” and be passive in the hands of Christ? Is this according to the proportion of God’s Word? I doubt it.”

This is a fascinating parallel with modern day Gospel Sanctification. Gospel Sanctification teaches that our battle with the flesh is not an internal battle with indwelling sin. GS holds that the “flesh” is a “realm” and a “law” like gravity. At any given time, we “yield” to one or the other [the flesh realm or the realm of the Holy Spirit].

Again, this prompts Ryle to make a case for the Scriptural call to effort and exertion as opposed to the error of quietism. As one writer put it: “We must work out what God has worked in.” Ryle continues:

“Again it would be easy to show that the doctrine of sanctification without personal exertion, by simply “yielding ourselves to God,” is precisely the doctrine of the antinomian fanatics in the seventeenth century (to whom I have referred already, described in Rutherford’s Spiritual Antichrist), and that the tendency of it is evil in the extreme.–Again, it would be easy to show that the doctrine is utterly subversive of the whole teaching of such tried and approved books as Pilgrim’s Progress, and that if we receive it we cannot do better then put Bunyan’s old book in the fire! If Christian in Pilgrim’s Progress simply yielded himself to God, and never fought, or struggled, or wrestled, I have read the famous allegory in vain. But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification. 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.”

Also, Ryle bemoans the rise of new terminology in regard to Sanctification in his day:

“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements–or by overstraining and isolating particular texts–or by exalting one truth at the expense of another–or ?by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them”

Yes, new terms like “deep repentance” and “new obedience.” As a long time pastor once said to me: “Paul!, what is deep repentance? Whatever happened to regular old repentance? ” Well, here is what happened to it-I will let my precious brother JC Ryle conclude:

“There is an Athenian love of novelty abroad, and a morbid distaste for anything old and regular, and in the beaten path of our forefathers. Thousands will crowd to hear a new voice and a new doctrine, without considering for a moment whether what they hear is true.

paul