Timothy Kauffman's Recent Critique of Brown, Tchividjian & Keller

Sorry, my question regarding the term salvation was one where I was asking why salvation has come to mean, almost exclusively, an historical even instead of present reality (sanctification) and/or a future hope (glorification).

With regards to sanctification I believe that we ought to be diligent to stir up the grace of God that is in us. Whether the label synergism is appropriate I leave to the scholars in academia decide.

 

My Pastor, preaching out of Galations 4, said today that three words that are contrary to the gospel are the words "do your part". I think that sums up my position in this discussion pretty well.

 

"Grace isn't opposed to effort, but to earning."

 

I'm buyin' what your pastor's sellin'.

 

I'm plagiarizing : ) Where is that quote from, Raekwon?

 

Faith is necessary on the sinner's part to receive the righteousness of Christ for justification. It is certainly the gift of God, but that does not negate the fact that believing in Christ is something which must be done on the sinner's part. And then we might ask, What has happened to repentance? "Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ" (WCF 15.1).

 

Thanks for the quote, brother. This is the vital distinction that is too often missed in this discussion. It's one that I find is particularly difficult to grasp on the part of those whose conception of Christianity prior to coming to some kind of Reformed view really was some kind of legalism, whether of the Romish, extreme fundamentalist or pentecostal variety.

I agree with the OP that there are similarities to the older practical antinomianism here. While the doctrinal differences on a formal level are more clear, I also don't find it surprising that dispensationalists (especially of the DTS variety as opposed to MacArthur types) who are coming to an appreciation of the Doctrines of Grace are frequently gung ho for the teachings espoused by those criticized in the OP. On the other hand, they don't hesitate to deem real Puritanism to be legalism. They've usually never heard of the Third Use of the Law and when explained to them they usually recoil at it. OTOH, the "New Calvinists" who have to formally subscribe to the WCF will pay lip service to it but at noted on this site previously, they sometimes redefine it into something else.

I am thankful for those who have been delivered from genuine legalism by the teachings of Brown, Tchidvidjan, et al. But Reformed teaching it ain't on this point.

 

Well said.

Yes, we all argee that faith and repentance are necessary. I'm sure Brad's pastor does, too. I suppose we could add a number of good qualifiers to this statement.

But I know what he means. There are many, many people who believe they have to show a certain amount of good faith effort toward trying to be good and, if it's enough effort, God will approve and take things the rest of the way. This is indeed contrary to the gospel.

 

Not sure what you're looking for.

I just meant to say that I assume the statement that "do your part" is contrary to the gospel...

- did not mean to imply faith isn't necessary.
- did not mean to imply repentance isn't necessary.
- did not mean to imply we don't participate in sanctification.
- did not mean to imply... (you name it, we could go on)

Qualifiers. We could add them ad infinitum as we think of ways folks might misunderstand the statement. But if we always add all the possible qualifiers, the statement loses its punch. I think I understand what Brad and his pastor meant without them.

 

I'm not trying to be difficult. We must just be talking past each other somehow. I'll try again...

We DO have our part in all of these, of course. They are conscious actions on our part.

I know that.
You know that.
Brad knows that.
Brad's pastor, if he's any kind of PCA pastor at all, surely knows that too.

So since we all know that, do we really have go through the list of all the things grace doesn't mean every time someone mentions how great God's free grace is? Can't we just revel in grace without feeling a need to say "Now don't get the wrong idea, you still need to do ______ and _______ and _____"?

Such things probably would be good to mention when dealing with someone who resists repenting and calling on God in faith. But does that mean they must be mentioned in every post that mentions grace? I hope not. I hope I can express an appreciation for grace without having do list all the things I don't mean by that every time.

The unnamed pastor made a comment that "do your part" is contrary to the gospel. I think I understand what that pastor means. I think he's refuting the idea that God requires you to make a certain amount of effort to be good—to meet him part way—before he'll be inclined to help you. Such ideas ought to be refuted. So I agree with that pastor.

I do NOT take it to mean there's no effort ever, of any kind, that's part of the Christian life. I also do NOT take it to mean that the faith, repentance and ongoing sanctification God works in me is somehow divorced from the gospel of Jesus.

But I will sometimes say "I love God's grace!" and "I'm so glad God doesn't make me meet him part way!" without feeling a need to always add those explanations.

 

We trust Brad knows that. The absolutism of grace is wonderful to adore as sinners who know we can do nothing of ourselves. In the context of this discussion, however, where "our part" in faith, repentance, sanctification, and perseverance is precisely the point under debate, a statement which denies "our part" is, at the very least, contentious, and that is putting the most charitable interpretation on it that we can.

 

Yeah, the original topic was our effort in sanctification. I sought to explain that to understand the Grace Movement we need to understand what those guys mean when they talk of "effort" being bad. They mean a self-effort that's divorced from all the promises and blessings we have in Christ and from the encouragement and power these give us.

I took Brad's pastor to mean something similar by "do your part." I suppose we need Brad to explain in order to be certain. But given the explanations that came earlier in the thread, I certainly would not assume he meant that we have no role in faith, repentance and sanctification.

 

This almost sounds like the Lordship Salvation Controversy all over again.

BTW, for the record, I picked up Tullian's book Saturday (I haven't finished my coffee, so I'm not even going to attempt to type his last name right now). I'm about a third of the way through it, and it is overall a very good read. And for the record, I'm not picking up even a hint of antinomianism in the book. What I am getting is Tullian's emphasis on the gospel and the cross of Christ, and for us to remember that the cross isn't just for us at the time of our conversion. He's making it clear that we need to rest in Christ and His work, and not to exercise sanctification by our own efforts apart from God.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, those of us who were exposed to Arminianism earlier in life know all too well that it's not that far a step from sanctification to works-righteousness if we're not careful. That is a real danger, even for those of us steeped in Calvin and the Puritans. Even understanding that our sanctification/mortification of sin does not save us, we can fall very easily into a trap of questioning our salvation based upon how sanctified we are (or worse yet, how we "feel") instead of resting on the work of Christ.

As Paul said, if it's of works, then grace is no longer grace.

 

If people want to better understand what those opposing the grace folks are getting at, this blog post may help - The Hole in Our Holiness – Kevin DeYoung

 

Never said you didn't, my friend.

---------- Post added at 07:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

That's a good posting.

 

I try not to be, but believe me it's something I have to battle with.

When you hear Arminianism for a good portion of your life, you start worrying about your good works, and not in a good way. You start judging yourself by whether or not you've "done enough," and it can be maddening, because whether you mean to or not you base your salvation ultimately on your own efforts. It's such a subtle sin, and before you know it you're looking at yourself instead of Christ.

 

But, alas, I'm still not sure I understand the questions. They seem to have something to do with...

- Making sure we understand that the gospel is bigger than mere justification. No problem there. I agree, of course. Though in terms of word usage we must allow that the NT does not always speak in precise, consistent theological terms. Sometimes it seems to use "gospel" in a narrower sense to refer to a certain aspect of salvation (sometimes to refer to justification). And when a preacher uses it in the narrower sense I don't necessarily assume he doesn't recognize the larger sense as well.

- Making sure we understand that we have active participation in our conversion and subsequent sanctification. No problem there, either. I agree. In fact, I don't know anyone of any prominence in the Reformed world who disagrees. Those I do know who speak of "effort" being bad don't mean that we shouldn't strive for holiness. Rather, they mean that we must do all things (including work at holiness) in faith, constantly relying on God.

Do you mean to argue that the Spirit has no role in our sanctification? That it's all our own work? I haven't thought that was your position, but it's starting to sound like that. It seems that when people talk about the ongoing work of God in a believer's life, you feel a need to refute that. As if the idea that God is at work in a believer's life is bad doctrine. But I don't think you really mean that. So I'm lost as to what you do mean.


Hate to type and run, but I'll be gone for a few hours. There's a foot of snow to clear, breakfast to eat, work to start on...