# Tullian Tchividjian teaching Antinomianism?



## thistle93 (May 15, 2014)

I have been reading Antinomianism by Mark Jones. This explains all my post about Antinomianism. I was surprised to see he mentioned Tullian Tchividjian by name as teaching Antinomianism. From the little I have read and heard from Tchividjian, he is sure skating pretty close to it but not sure I would label him as an Antinomian. Agree or disagree? 

I am sure that Tchividjian would deny this charge and do you know of any links where he responds to charge made by Mark Jones, addresses the issue of Antinomianism and/or how what he teaches is not a form of Antinomianism? Would love to see a debate between Tchividjian and Mark Jones or Kevin DeYoung. 

Thank you!

For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## Brian R. (May 15, 2014)

Funny... Mark Jones has actually challenged him to a debate. See here.


----------



## Jerome Rosana (May 15, 2014)

thistle93 said:


> I have been reading Antinomianism by Mark Jones. This explains all my post about Antinomianism. I was surprised to see he mentioned Tullian Tchividjian by name as teaching Antinomianism. From the little I have read and heard from Tchividjian, he is sure skating pretty close to it but not sure I would label him as an Antinomian. Agree or disagree?
> 
> I am sure that Tchividjian would deny this charge and do you know of any links where he responds to charge made by Mark Jones, addresses the issue of Antinomianism and/or how what he teaches is not a form of Antinomianism? Would love to see a debate between Tchividjian and Mark Jones or Kevin DeYoung.
> 
> ...




I have a baptist friend who said that Tullian is a FREE GRACER (Free Grace Movement). He said that because my friend is on the free -grace movement side


----------



## Unoriginalname (May 15, 2014)

The more TT feels the need to contrast his view with prominent contemporary reformed writers the more I believe he may actually be antinomian. At every opportunity TT makes a point to double down his arguments instead of qualifying. We all make statements that could be stated better in retrospect, but every time that could be the case with TT he seems to clarify his point in such a way to make it more antinomian.


----------



## rbcbob (May 15, 2014)

thistle93 said:


> I have been reading Antinomianism by Mark Jones. This explains all my post about Antinomianism. I was surprised to see he mentioned Tullian Tchividjian by name as teaching Antinomianism. From the little I have read and heard from Tchividjian, he is sure skating pretty close to it but not sure I would label him as an Antinomian. Agree or disagree?
> 
> I am sure that Tchividjian would deny this charge and do you know of any links where he responds to charge made by Mark Jones, addresses the issue of Antinomianism and/or how what he teaches is not a form of Antinomianism? Would love to see a debate between Tchividjian and Mark Jones or Kevin DeYoung.
> 
> ...



See here for current debate: What We All Agree On, and What We (Probably) Don’t, In this Sanctification Debate – Kevin DeYoung


----------



## DMcFadden (May 15, 2014)

This side of heaven, we will all probably stray into unfortunate expressions that err in one way or another.

None of us are so brilliant as to consistently assimilate all of the biblical truth we profess to know. The result is that we can utter overly strong expressions that mingle truth and error so subtly. 

The theological truth "Lex semper accusat" can easily be overstated in ways that sound antinomian just as legitimate calls to obedience can be in-artfully framed so that they represent little more than "little engine that could" moralism. The standard critique of Lutheranism is that its preoccupation with justification leaves it with a truncated doctrine of sanctification. The standard critique of evangelical pietism and revivalism objects that its particular doctrine of sanctification vitiates the atoning work of Christ by denying it in practice.

If antinomianism represents damnable heresy, then I do not believe that Tullian is an antinomian. Could he phrase himself more carefully? Sure.


----------



## The Baptist (May 16, 2014)

But if I were him I think I'd still phrase things as he does. He's a counter-balance to the over emphasis on works. Both things are needed in reformed circles. It's hard to find a teacher that teaches both well. As I've heard said, we preach best what we need most, and we're all different and need different things.


----------



## arapahoepark (May 16, 2014)

The Baptist said:


> But if I were him I think I'd still phrase things as he does. He's a counter-balance to the over emphasis on works. Both things are needed in reformed circles. It's hard to find a teacher that teaches both well. As I've heard said, we preach best what we need most, and we're all different and need different things.


The thing is most of evangelicalism is antinomian and the reformers must contrast (or better yet distance) themselves from that. No one disagrees that law and gospel are opposed when it comes to justification but, what about definitive sanctification (a new creature) and sanctification of Romans 8?
I have not read too much of TT but, if what others say is true he is certainly antinomian foregoing sanctification entirely, or at least the way he says it (like others said without qualifying) leads one to believe it. I remember a few months ago he kept saying a Christian is still totally depraved. I can kind of see where he is going but, that's not exactly the case now. We are regenerated and made new Christians and with Augustine's formulations we are now "able to not sin," posse non peccare.


----------



## Jack K (May 16, 2014)

The Baptist said:


> He's a counter-balance to the over emphasis on works.





arap said:


> The thing is most of evangelicalism is antinomian



Well, those can't both be true, can they?

I'm afraid that neither of these generalizations, well-intentioned as they are, fully fit what I've observed of evangelicals. At the risk of generalizing myself, I've observed the following:

1. Many evangelicals have too little interest in holy living and have bought into an "easy-believism" brand of Christianity that seldom sees salvation as much more than a ticket into heaven obtained by a sinner's prayer and confirmed by a vaguely Jesus-y existence.

2. Many other evangelicals try hard to live holy lives but constantly feel burdened and guilty over their failures or have slipped into a works-minded, self-effort brand of Christianity.

3. Many, many evangelicals exhibit some of BOTH traits. This would seem inconsistent, but it's the sort of confusion people are living under. They tell themselves that God's grace comes freely and easily to them, yet they're still burdened by guilt and prone to legalism _at the same time._ So in a sense, both Martin's and Trent's statements are true after all... though neither gives us a full picture.

It's a mistake to latch onto either one of these errors and think that it alone describes most evangelicals, and that we either need to stop teaching radical grace (because most evangelicals are antinomian) or need to stop teaching law (because most evangelicals are legalists). In fact, most of us—not just _those_ evangelicals—struggle awkwardly with BOTH. We all need a big view of Jesus and his saving work that both rests in radical grace and delightedly pursues holiness. In fact, without the rest the pursuit becomes crushing, and without the pursuit the rest becomes stale.

That said, many believers do lean toward one error or the other, and there's a place for pastors who're particulary good at encouraging such people. I could make a case, for example, for sending Paul Washer to the easy-believism crowd and Tullian to the beat-yourself-up legalists... _if_ I could separate out the two groups. It's hard to address both at the same time in a format like a book: I find this to be one of the toughest things I've ever tried to do when it comes to writing. So I understand pastors who specialize in speaking well to just one group, I admire those those who manage to speak effectively to both at the same time, and I put little stock in statements that suggest only one of these issues should really be a concern.


----------



## KMK (May 16, 2014)

The Baptist said:


> It's hard to find a teacher that teaches both well.



I think the key to this problem is the expository approach to preaching and expository hearing.


----------



## earl40 (May 16, 2014)

His Commandments Are Not Burdensome | Meet The Puritans


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 16, 2014)

I observed a few things and decided to blog on these issues a few years ago. I believe we even had a discussion on the Puritanboard about this subject. 

http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.co...-christianity-may-be-antinomian-christianity/

Depraved Christianity may be Antinomian Christianity Part 2 | RPCNA Covenanter

http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.co...ianity-might-be-antinomian-christianity-pt-3/


----------



## Peairtach (May 16, 2014)

The Covenant of Grace is always _both/and_. 

A _relationship_ with God in Christ established and maintained by grace - _with rules_ i.e. the moral law.

The covenant of marriage isn't a loving relationship without rules, or rules without a loving relationship.


----------



## housta (May 16, 2014)

Some recent blog posts on this:

When You Fail to Distinguish Second and Third Use of the Law–A Response to Tullian Tchividjian | Canon Fodder

Law-Gospel Off the Rails - Reformation21 Blog


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 17, 2014)

Danny Hyde has written a good blog post over on Meet the Puritans. Enjoy.

http://www.meetthepuritans.com/2014/05/16/his-commandments-are-not-burdensome/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 17, 2014)

I was reading through one of the threads and noticed something that I must have missed last year. I knew there was a pre-Assembly theological conference before the PCA General Assembly last year on Grace but I didn't realize that the sessions were posted for us to listen to. One of the sessions that peaked my interest was a critique of the Modern Grace Movement. So I downloaded it and listened. I have to admit that I was quite taken back by the content and theological expose' that was given. Now the session doesn't mention any names nor does it openly go after anyone specifically. At the same time I found it quite unavoidable to see certain teachers and teachings being address. It is very relevant to this topic. I would wholeheartedly encourage everyone who has any interest in this topic to give this Session a solid listening to. 

Original page to Conference videos. 2013 Sessions

Sermon Audio page with audio and video links
Critique of the Contemporary Grace Movement | SermonAudio.com 

Video SermonAudio.com - Media Player

[video=youtube;EXIcUGPactE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXIcUGPactE[/video]


----------



## Jack K (May 18, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I was reading through one of the threads and noticed something that I must have missed last year. I knew there was a pre-Assembly theological conference before the PCA General Assembly last year on Grace but I didn't realize that the sessions were posted for us to listen to. One of the sessions that peaked my interest was a critique of the Modern Grace Movement. So I downloaded it and listened. I have to admit that I was quite taken back by the content and theological expose' that was given. Now the session doesn't mention any names nor does it openly go after anyone specifically. At the same time I found it quite unavoidable to see certain teachers and teachings being address. It is very relevant to this topic. I would wholeheartedly encourage everyone who has any interest in this topic to give this Session a solid listening to.
> 
> Original page to Conference videos. 2013 Sessions
> 
> ...



Randy, I think you would enjoy reading Jack Miller's short book, _Repentance and the 21st Century Man_, recently reprinted and published under the title, _Repentance: A Daring Call to Real Surrender_. As mentioned in the audio talk you linked to, Jack Miller was the father of what we now might call the "Grace Movement" (though I prefer not to think of myself as a part of any movement other than that of Christ's kingdom), and this is the book that got it started. I'll think you'll find it is not at all what you imagine it to be and, as I said, I suspect you'll really like the book. From interactions I've had with you, I think you'll appreciate Jack's biblical message and his heart.

I've listened to that audio talk before, of course. It's my business to be aware of such criticism. Sadly, it is not a very helpful talk. As the speaker admits, he really is not very familiar with the movement he's critiquing. He had a bad experience with an assistant pastor and has picked up quotes from some of the many unnamed fringe people who've latched on to pieces of the Jack Miller legacy, and he uses those to try to discredit "all those people" who talk about grace. For a guy like me who grew up in faith under the pastoral care of Jack Miller and his students, that audio talk simply does not ring true. Okay, there must be people who say the things that speaker quoted, but they don't sound much like Jack or like anyone I know today in the organizations Jack left behind.

There have been several insightful critiques that people such as myself do benefit from because they inteligently and gently help us to keep from straying onto unwise paths. For example, I feel I've been helpfully chanenged and corrected on occassion by Kevin DeYoung. His comments are always well-researched and presented graciously, focused on fair criticism of the heart of the movement rather than cheap potshots at the fringes. As a result, they are usually beneficial.

I fear that audio link, in contrast, generates some destructive heat by the broad accusations it makes based on a few peoples' rhetoric. But it brings little light because its mocking tone, presented with minimum familiarity of the topic being mocked, makes people like me who supposedly need to hear it tune it out.

Again, if the topic interests you, you really ought to read Jack Miller's book. You ought to do what the speaker in that clip never did: read the original documents. Decide whether or not it's antinomian by going straight to the source rather than by listening to someone else who's never read it tell you what to ought to think of it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (May 18, 2014)

Jack K said:


> Randy, I think you would enjoy reading Jack Miller's short book, Repentance and the 21st Century Man, recently reprinted and published under the title, Repentance: A Daring Call to Real Surrender. As mentioned in the audio talk you linked to, Jack Miller was the father of what we now might call the "Grace Movement" (though I prefer not to think of myself as a part of any movement other than that of Christ's kingdom), and this is the book that got it started. I'll think you'll find it is not at all what you imagine it to be and, as I said, I suspect you'll really like the book. From interactions I've had with you, I think you'll appreciate Jack's biblical message and his heart.
> 
> 
> I've listened to that audio talk before, of course. It's my business to be aware of such criticism. Sadly, it is not a very helpful talk. As the speaker admits, he really is not very familiar with the movement he's critiquing. He had a bad experience with an assistant pastor and has picked up quotes from some of the many unnamed fringe people who've latched on to pieces of the Jack Miller legacy, and he uses those to try to discredit "all those people" who talk about grace. For a guy like me who grew up in faith under the pastoral care of Jack Miller and his students, that audio talk simply does not ring true. Okay, there must be people who say the things that speaker quoted, but they don't sound much like Jack or like anyone I know today in the organizations Jack left behind.
> ...



Actually Jack, the speaker noted he wasn't familiar with the movement when he first learned of it and was introduced to it by his Associate minister many years ago. He became quite familiar with the movement do the fact that he and his Elders were discovering what was truly being said. He and his Elders spent a year studying the topic years ago and then formulated a position paper on the topic for their congregation as he notes other congregations have chosen to do also. This was not some random Pastor getting in front of group of men spouting off about something he was unfamiliar with as you seem to be charging. 


BTW, I didn't see any cheap potshots directed at anyone and the doctrines and charges leveled were not at some fringe teaching or group. I actually can take you to major prominent teachers and Seminary Profs who are hailed as this generations greatest teachers. We can name names and go there if you so desire so that I can show you this but I am trying to keep personality out of this. He pointed to specific doctrinal teaching. It is not fringe either. 

Concerning Jack Miller, the speaker admitted that what Jack Miller learned has dwarfed through the years in various ways through various groups. I actually appreciate Jack Miller. I recently read his book Welcome Back Barbara which is a book Jack co-wrote with his daughter. Having been involved with discipleship for 3 decades and having read that book and many others I fully understand the difference between charging someone to work out their salvation and the need to be Pastoral and comforting to a wounded conscience in need of encouragement. I am quite familiar with the need to be gracious, merciful, and tenderhearted toward those who are tired and struggling. I don't think anyone in this situation is negating the need for that. 


I listened to the session two times last evening and found it quite accurate and applicable to a lot of the situation the Church faces today. I mean no disrespect to your analysis but it seems your charge of unhelpful rhetoric is just as rhetorical and unfounded in my estimation. Especially when I consider how the author noted historical doctrine and the specific differences between said doctrine and Reformed Theology. I am personally being quite refrained here not choosing to name names and point to specific articulated teachings I have exposed before and written quite a bit about on my blog. 


Your brother,

Addition, btw Jack, I didn't pick up on the mocking tone you accuse the speaker of. The speaker also wasn't reacting as a singular man who had a "Bad Experience" with an Associate Pastor. Concerns arose from the Elders of the Church that this younger Associate Pastor was trying to enlighten to his understanding. I thought Reverend Barnes was very respectful and gracious. Like you he admonished everyone to pick up Kevin Deyoung's book "A Hole in Our Holiness" as an example of dealing with this situation.


----------



## Scott1 (May 18, 2014)

"Contemporary grace" error is one of the greatest challenges to Reformed theology in this generation.

It has tendencies, at least toward antinomianism, "easy believism," and toward putting down the role of the Holy Spirit as well as neutralizing Confessional doctrine, and even church discipline.

The Gospel Reformation network is working hard to educate and exhort those to the systematic dangers of this pernicious, man-centered doctrine. We owe a debt of gratitude to these leaders in the PCA for leading in this, as the peace and purity of the church is threatened.


----------



## The Baptist (May 19, 2014)

Jack

I think you and I are in agreement. I was saying he is a counterbalance to one extreme in his extremism. But I happen to even like Steve Brown who most hate. People accuse him of antinomianism as well. But the reality is he isn't. He's just more loose lipped than he ought to be. As another poster mentioned, it's expository preaching that fights this best, but I don't think it will ever be solved this side of Heaven.


----------

