It seems to me that this Luther/Forde/Tullian/Horton brand of "gospel-centeredness" is imbalanced. The NT teaching on the transformation of new covenant believers, the empowering presence of the Spirit, the reality that our behavior pleases/displeases the Lord, and genuine warnings to believers are downplayed or muted in their writings. This version of the Christian life doesn't due justice to a lot of the teaching in the NT.
This brings me to the point of this blog post. David Murray has written three excellent and gracious blog posts interacting with Tullian's book:
- Does Jesus + Nothing = Everything?
- The Danger of Making Our Experience the Norm for Others
- Does Jesus Respond to Our Obedience with Love?
As this movement gains popularity, I think voices like Murray are greatly needed.
One of the best resources on this whole discussion is a book called Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification edited by Donald L. Alexander. In it, Gerhard Forde represents the Lutheran view. Horton and Tullian love to quote Forde and similar Lutheran theologians. I think Sinclair Ferguson, who does the Reformed view, does a superb job showing the weaknesses of this "Lutheran" view of sanctification. His chapter is much better (though wouldn't agree with all of it since I am not a Covenant Theologian).
Related Post: Justification, Sanctification, and Moral Effort
8 comments:
Blake,
I haven't read everything being said of late but do admire and respect all of those you mentioned. My thoughts follow.
Nothing motivates like the Gospel. The saint's deep hatred for sin and love for God and one another is God's doing. What more can be said?
Much love!
Moe
Blake,
Can you point us to something out there that would give creditability to the following comment you make?
"The NT teaching on the transformation of new covenant believers, the empowering presence of the Spirit, the reality that our behavior pleases/displeases the Lord, and genuine warnings to believers are downplayed or muted."
I have yet to hear or read such and I'm sure your readers would appreciate some evidence.
Much love,
Moe
Hey Moe,
I listed 3 books and made a general reference to Forde's work.
Did you mean something else?
Here is the sermon I mentioned:
http://www.thevillagechurch.net/sermon/jesus-plus-nothing-equals-everything/
If you read the 3 links I posted, you will see several such excerpts from the book.
Blake,
I just read the sermon you mentioned by TT. I didn't notice any serious red flags.
My brother, sometimes it is good to know why others say and write what they do. Perhaps Tullian and the others you mentioned are responding to a problem of legalism or other things they have observed in their own circles that have distracted the saint’s focus from the Gospel.
I would suggest we allow them some latitude. Jumping into this as an advocate of NCT may only complicate and confuse others. Where we take sides in the public forum can create unintended consequences.
The issue of Law/Grace is not new. JGR is understood by many out there as being a strong advocate of Grace. He is not considered an advocate of Law. We know where he stands. He's big on Law and that Law being the Law of Christ.
Blessings!
Moe
Ps., I can't afford to purchase the books you mentioned. Citations would have served well through Google.
Hey Moe,
Thanks for the comment. These books are written to a general audience, not simply those they may think are legalistic. They are very popular among my friends, so I felt the need to post.
Both Horton and TT tell us in their books why they are writing. Horton thinks the church has lost the doctrine of justification. TT had a personal crisis, realizing he was dependent on the praise of people rather than the declaration of Christ.
I agree, that most Christians do not sufficiently grasp the gospel of grace. What bugs me with these books is what is missing. Grace is not simply pardon in the NT, it is also power. The NT is chock full of imperatives (I heard one say over 2,000). Post Reformation Lutheran theology is notorious for downplaying imperatives and equating justification with sanctification.
I think the consequences of such imbalances can have harmful consequences - hence this post. David Murray wrote the critique that I would have like to have written if I had the time - so I shared it. Did you read those? They were quite balanced.
I am not sure i understand what you mean about being an NCT advocate. If anything, I want to distance NCT from these perspectives since they invite charges of antinomianism and we have had enough of that.
I am not advocating law. I am advocating the NT. Indicative grounding imperative - but there is imperative!
This is where I side with DeYoung, Frame, and Hood: (http://ablakew.blogspot.com/2011/06/justification-sanctification-and-moral.html). I think they are much more faithful to the NT. We have more than Gal 2 and Rom 3-4 in our Bibles. The New Covenant is both forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit.
Sorry I do not have to time to track down google references. It is the tone of the books as a whole though. No room for subjectivity.
If you have time, this sermon by Tom Schreiner is much more balanced in my opinion:
http://www.sbts.edu/resources/chapel/sow-to-the-spirit/?play=true
in Christ,
bw
Douglas Moo did a review of John Frame on the Christian life:
andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Moo_reviews_Frame.pdf
Jeff,
Thank you so much! I was not aware of this, and think Moo's critique is right on,
bw
Post a Comment