Tags
The False Doctrine of Gospel Sanctification
…the New Calvinists teaching that confuses justification with sanctification makes justification progressive – and that, my brethren, is the difference between Protestant thinking, and Roman Catholicism. – Joel Taylor
Many Christians within the Reformed camp are thinking like Roman Catholics. I’ll explain….
Timothy Kauffman of the Trinity Foundation has written an outstanding refutation of the false and destructive doctrine of Gospel sanctification in an article entitled Sanctification, Half Full: The Myopic Hermeneutic of the “Grace Movement”.
Among others, he addresses the erroneous and harmful teachings of Steve Brown, Tim Keller, Tullian Tchividjian and how the Protestant reformer Martin Luther is ‘played’ and whose writings are abused in order to convince many of this teaching of Gospel sanctification – a teaching that conflates justification with sanctification.
It is, in my opinion, a most important read. For the New Calvinists teaching that confuses justification with sanctification makes justification progressive….and that, my brethren, is the difference between Protestant thinking, and Roman Catholicism.
It’s that serious.
Paul Washer writes in Gospel 101- An Apostolic Introduction:
Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel… I Corinthians 15:1
In this simple phrase, we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is “the” message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer. The Apostle had already preached the Gospel to these people! He was their father in the faith!
Yet he sees the greatest need to continue teaching the Gospel to them, not only to remind them of its essential ingredients, but also to expand their knowledge of it.
At their conversion, they merely began a journey of discovery that would encompass their entire life and carry on through the endless ages of eternity – the discovery of the glories of God revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (emphasis mine)
The words I have placed in bold, brethren, is the New Calvinists teaching of Gospel Sanctification, and Gospel sanctification is not why the Apostle Paul ‘made known’ the Gospel to the Corinthians. Gospel sanctification is contrary to the Word of God – throughout!
I urge you to read Kauffman’s article and encourage you to refer it to everyone who reads New Calvinists material: Al Mohler, Tim Keller, Tullian Tchividjian, John Piper and material or videos of any others who are teaching this highly deceptive doctrine under the guise of ‘recovering the Gospel.’
The Gospel of Jesus Christ has never been lost. The battle we engage in is not against men, but against falsehood, for the sake of the Church.
5 Pt. Salt 
Joel,
This language of “new Calvinism” is something new to me. While I assumed it was used to refer to those who took the label “Reformed” even while clearly outside the bounds of it (i.e. Mark Driscoll), you have used much more liberally than I would have expected (i.e. the folks over at Reformation 21 or, say, Al Mohler). Could you help me to 1) understand just what teachings justifies someone receiving the label “new Calvinism”- besides their view of sanctification as you have already articulated here; 2) who you consider to be contemporary teachers who are not “new Calvinists” but those whom you consider to be clearly within the orthodox Reformed tradition – either Baptist or non-Baptist.
Thank, Doug
This might give you a good foundation. Also, check out the other articles while you’re there. Click here.
Joel, thanks for the great article and alert… as well as the link to Timothy Kauffman’s article, which caused me to find that when I revamped my resources links, that your site was missing and so was Trinity Foundation from that portion, which once used to be there. Hope to correct that soon.
I have been concerned with this new Calvinism as well and how it has been shaping the young minds that are riding upon the crest of a resurgence in the doctrines of grace. I just had a young man visit from a church in a nearby city (with the blessing from his pastor) to help him with his research concerning some of these issues. He’ll be reporting to them, but I’ll email him this article which will be useful to him.
Thanks again. May the Lord continue to bless and keep you in your service to Him.
Thanks for the link to the Trinity article. Those 3 people they used as examples are easy targets – yet legitimate. I have been listening to the RTS series mentioned in that article and while there is much good content, that Ester comment and a later message from Keller ’bout made me throw up.
Gospel sanctification seems to be creeping into more and more folks theology and preaching. May God have mercy.
Doug, They keep adding to the “New Calvinist” definition so I am not so sure anymore. Mohler, in the GC video, was saying that if you want to see the nations rejoice for Christ you can only go one place: Reformed/New Calvinism”. Some in the SBC, like me, have a huge problem with many things he said on that video to an NC audience.
However, A young YRR pastor in the SBC and on an SBC pastors blog, told me that Mohler was including me in that definition because I am SBC and the SBC has affirmed the BFM2000. For some reason, that automatically makes me “Reformed/New Calvinist”.
This movement is so mushy doctrinally, I am not convinced one can define it specificially. I am starting to think that is only a small part of it. It is really about celebrity, garnering followers and marketing. I am starting to see they have taken a page from the seekers handbook but do it better, quite frankly.
Interesting…
Can I clarify something? You believe that Christ earned our sanctification, correct (that is, the power of His death and resurrection efficaciously causes us to be sanctified)? It also appears that there is confusion regarding what the “gospel” is. I believe that the gospel is Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and coming judgment. Justification by faith alone is an implication of the gospel. Christ, in His humiliation, was our Substitute, and His exaltation is the reward of His obedience (and we shall be glorified as He is glorified). But there is also another implication of the gospel: in regeneration, the old man was crucified with Christ, and the new man was raised with Him; in progressive sanctification it works the same way: we are commanded and progressively enabled to die unto sin, as Christ died, and live unto righteousness, as Christ rose again from the dead. If we don’t want to call this “gospel,” that’s fine with me. But let’s not forget that our sanctification is Christocentric (effected by His death and resurrection, and to model His death and resurrection).
“You believe that Christ earned our sanctification, correct (that is, the power of His death and resurrection efficaciously causes us to be sanctified)?”
The wording itself seems a tad dangerous. Christ certainly was risen for our justification, but when you say ‘earned our sanctification’, it sounds like you are using the term sanctification in place of justification, which would be the current erroneous teaching of gospel sanctification – and very antinomian at it’s core. other than that, sounds good.
Joel,
There is nothing dangerous about it! It is just a fact of biblical truth. It is the same work of Christ that justifies us that also sanctifies us. Neither is accomplished without the other. John Owen wrote, “Any man in whom the death of Christ for sin, has not become his death to sin shall die in his sin.” All for whom Christ died, died in him and with him to the reigning power of sin.
And what is antinomian about saying Jesus accomplished our sanctification on the cross?
I would argue that He completed everything necessary to affect and therefore makes certain our eventual glorification- at the resurrection; however I would say though that sanctification, a gradual and lifelong process of being conformed to the image of the Son, is not fully completed in anyone( in this life), but is completed to varying degrees depended on one’s yieldedness to the Holy Spirit. Separating justification, sanctification, and glorification is critical, ordo salutis is critical to right understanding. In that context sanctification- holy living- in His power of course- is given its proper role- in contrast to the antinomianism which arises when you conflate the three concepts.
Bingo.
” is completed to varying degrees depended on one’s yieldedness to the Holy Spirit. ”
Ok, but in Joel’s other post where he talks about “playing God with one’s own heart” that is exactly what I see them trying to do. Joel took issue rightly with the practice of “trying” to make oneself more sanctified. And yet here he seems to be saying the opposite.
Maybe I am misunderstanding the term, but as I understand it, gospel sanctification is not where you NEVER preach the law. It is preaching the law in all its impossible force. Not giving “law light” or refusing to name sin. But the gospel must be preached to the church after that because without it we have no hope, we burn out, and give up in despair. OR we become pharisees. Those are not the results of a right understanding of grace, but they are a result of focusing too hard on the law and trying to earn God’s acceptance or make ourselves more holy by it.
So I’m not sure what the issue is with “Gospel sanctification.” We’ve seen from decades of law sanctification (moralism) that that doesn’t work either.
Okay , well here’ s a curve ball thats been keeping me awake at night thinking about how this fits into the plan of justification / sanctification . It’s a solitary verse from Hebrews, but I am beginning to think it has huge implications.
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are
sanctified.
I’m not sure what thoughts others have on this , but is it possible that this is an affirmation of predestination, that we are in fact sanctified in that we are elect.
Bingo!!
The things is, the statement we are discussing doesn’t conflate justification and sanctification. To say that God’s work of justification and sanctification are coextensive in believers or that they are accomplished by the same redemptive work of Christ is not a conflation of these two works. These divine acts are conflated in people’s understanding when we begin to think that anything we do or anything God does in us in the sanctification process contributes, in the slightest, to the basis of our justification before God.
Re: Heb. 10:14– the point of the text is that, in contrast to the priestly offerings of the Old Covenant that could never take away sins, Jesus has, by his one act of obedience, his once for all sacrifice, accomplished the full salvation of his people, including our glorification. It was indeed finished when he died, as some of us used to sing, “On the cross he sealed my pardon, paid the debt, and set me free.” We know if this is true of us if we are among those who are “being sanctified.”
Sanctification is not ‘the basis’ of your justification Randy. The believer is not passive in the sanctification process, I think we’ve covered this before, haven’t we?
William,
I would draw a contrast between the various works of God’s redeeming grace being “accomplished” by Christ’s work and being “completed” in the believer’s life. He “accomplished” the redemption not only of his elect people but also the reconciliation and renovation of all things by his one act of sacrifice. Certainly the process of the application of that act of redemption is not yet “completed.” We can say the same about the progressive sanctification of believers.
Perhaps someone can tell me if you think the believer’s sanctification as well as his justification was accomplished on the cross as a blessing of God’s free grace, or if it is simply the result of the believer’s self-effort now that he has been declared righteous. In my view, the question at issue here is not whether sanctification is through faith alone so much as it is whether it is alone through faith, i.e., it can’t be accomplished by my diligence apart from dependance on Christ and his Spirit. In other words, is it a work I can effect simply by trying harder or must I continually appropriate the sacrifice of Christ by faith [ “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” “remain in me as a branch remains in the vine,” etc] as I seek to be obedient to the biblical injunctions to sanctification?
Wow, you’re a new calvinist, lol
Joel,
You wrote:
“Sanctification is not ‘the basis’ of your justification Randy. The believer is not passive in the sanctification process, I think we’ve covered this before, haven’t we?”
Can you cite one place where I have given the slightest indication that “sanctification is the basis of justification,” or that “the believer is passive in the sanctification process.”
If we’ve covered this before, you must not have understood me. You keep making the same unfounded accusations.
The post is not about you Randy, and no ‘accusations have been made. This is not a place for debate, and you’re high expectations for a response are clearly an indication that you have not read to comment policy here. Let me make this very clear once for all. Do not automatically expect a response. You may, or may not get one. Please, once again, see comment policy. I will not say this again.
No, I am not a “New Calvinist.” I have cited for you and can again cite for you a ton of Calvinists from centuries past who have stated precisely what I am stating here.
Joel,
“Gospel Sanctification” is not a false doctrine. The doctrine itself should not be rejected simply because some may be abusing it and misstating it. The doctrines of justification through faith alone and unconditional election have been abused and mishandled as well, but we would not for that reason call them false doctrine would we?
Having read the article, while i understand what he is intending to do and see some reasonable exegetical problems he offers for examples, I do believe Kauffman does not fully understand the other sides perspective.
Perhaps I’ve always read orthodoxy into many of those you claim are unorthodox. I’ve always seen their presentation of the gospel as effectual for the justification of the believer, but also (and here’s where I think the hang up is) as the motivation for sanctification but not the means.
Paul says in Rom 6. “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.”
He says this only after delineating what has happened in justification. Thus he uses justification (a once for all time act) as a motivation for obedience.
Unbelievers need to hear the Gospel b/c they need justification.
Believers need the to hear the gospel b/c they need to be reminded that they have been justified.
Because of sin, the temptation of the believer is always to move from sanctification to progressive justification subconsciously. “His righteousness” subtly becomes “my righteousness”
The preaching of the gospel in light of sanctification does not support this view (as you claim) – it combats it. It is only by understanding that my obedience has nothing to do with my justification, that I can begin to rightly take up sanctification. Thus the gospel is integral to my sanctification.
The areas in my life that I continue to resist mortification of the flesh, often are the areas that I have yet to understand fully what took place when I was justified.
The old operation of earning God’s favor still is employed by me under the guise of good religious discipline. What must take place is that the gospel must be understood as sufficient for my standing before God, so that my motivation for godly discipline moves from a progressive justification mentality to a sanctification mentality.
The gospel kills the progressive justification lie. I am putting to death the flesh (the “its my righteousness lie”) and beginning to now be obedient to Christ not just at an action level in hopes of good behavior, but from a point of good favor.
Look at Paul’s argument in 1 Cor 6:1-12. It is a justification fact, that implies sanctified living. The Corinthians don’t need simply to be reminded what to do. They have a problem of not knowing why they should live a certain way. I.e. “But you were justified…. “
Bingo! 😉
Justification is that one time action. It’s that reconciliation that happens. Totally by God’s power. Sanctification is the process by which we are made more like Christ, made Holy! We’re not perfect, but our lives should be improving and constantly showing more proof, more fruit of the power of Christ in you! If Christ is mighty to save, then Christ is mighty make you new!
Also, a good resource
The Gospel Primer by Milton Vincent
The gospel is not our launching pad, it is our rocket. It is our pod. What is meant by that is that the action of Christ, on the cross, taking on the wrath of God… that should be central to our lives, our words, our thoughts and our actions. Everything stems out of the redemption that Christ provides. It is not a one-time acknowledgement, but a way of life that ever-improves by God’s supernaturally and gracefully-given power THROUGH the study and meditation based in God’s Word. Don’t. EVER. Forget. The. Gospel.
Bam! Perfect! I don’t get how some people are calling it a heresy that the Gospel and sanctification are connected to each other. The Gospel has nothing to do with sanctification? Are you serious? Thank you for your comment, I hope people will revise what they call ‘heresy’.
While we’re all celebrating having arrived at the truth, it seems that we’re still not considering what Tchividjian actually wrote. “…God works his work in you, which is the work already accomplished by Christ.” He was not speaking of mere motives for obedience, but that the finished work of sanctification was already accomplished at the cross. Somehow he makes a jump between God working in us now and that which was accomplished at the cross as being the exact same thing. Read his words again – “…God works his work in you, which is the work already accomplished by Christ.” This is a questionable at best interpretation of Phillipians2:13 and it IS antinomian heresy. Intentional and universal obedience to the commands of Scripture are not a denial of Christ’s work on the cross as is inferred by Tchividjian, but an affirmation of it by the individual believer.
Pingback: THE HERESY OF TULLIAN TCHIVIDJIAN &THE NEW CALVINISTS | brianhenryblog
So what causes us to grow in sanctification? The Law?
Pingback: National Repentance as Covenantal Imperative: A Response to Rev. Strauss at Faith and Heritage