# Chapell, Phillips & DeYoung on sanctification and grace



## Jack K (Jan 21, 2014)

Justification and Sanctification: What's the Problem?

Wow. I think this is one of the most interesting 10-minute discussions the Gospel Coalition has yet put to video. It's Bryan Chapell, Rick Phillips and Kevin DeYoung on the relationship between justification and sanctification. This is both timely and important.

My takeaways:

1. This discussion confirms my suspicion that the recent head-butting on this issue is seldom about actual differences in doctrine but more often about differences in approach to ministry. Some ministers are quick to see that people constantly need to be reminded that God's grace to them is not based on their performance. Other ministers are quick to see that people need to be told that salvation includes a life of repentance and obedience. Neither denies that both are true. But their diagnosis of what people most need to hear these days determines how they approach this topic and what they spend their time talking about.

2. I found Chapell's framework that God gives a _plurality_ of motivations for holy living (including "unpleasant" motivations like warnings), yet there is also a _priority_ of motivations (love for God, growing from his love for us, is the _best_ motivation), to be extremely helpful. Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I hadn't heard it stated quite that simply before.

Then again, my own approach to the topic most closely mirrors Chapell's, so I might be expected to chiefly appreciate what he says even while I agree that the other guys say good things too. I'm interested to see how the rest of you react.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 21, 2014)

Jack K said:


> But their diagnosis of what people most need to hear these days determines how they approach this topic and what they spend their time talking about.



The problem is that,
"their diagnosis"
of what (they think) people need to hear.
The Word of God makes clear they need to hear both.

To not do so as part of systematic doctrine is major error,
and a distortion of the gospel.
And it is gaining ground in our time.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > But their diagnosis of what people most need to hear these days determines how they approach this topic and what they spend their time talking about.
> ...



Having listened to the discussion, plus having read books and/or articles from each of those guys, it certainly doesn't seem fair to say that any of them is failing to teach both points I mentioned. Can I assume you don't have in mind the men in the video, but rather some more general idea of unnamed men who might be failing to teach some unnamed major point of doctrine, and therefore hold to "major error"?

I do believe part of a pastor's job is to get to know the people he's ministering to, understand their dispositions and needs, and emphasize those things they most need to hear. Without this work of "diagnosis," pastors might as well be eliminated altogether while we merely employ Bible readers. A pastor who makes such a diagnosis and acts on it is not necessarily ignoring other doctrine completely. To suggest that he must be doing so is to vastly underestimate our pastors. Don't you, even though you aren't a pastor, examine the needs and failings of the church in this time and place and emphasize things you believe the church needs to hear now? There's nothing wrong with that, and much right.

Scott, I can guess from your comment that maybe you thought all three of those men are somehow wrong because they aren't well-rounded enough or because they choose to make certain points without making others. But if that's not the case and there's a perspective you found yourself most readily appreciating, why don't you share what that was and why? If it happens to be different from what I most appreciated, that's fine. I'd still like to hear it. I learn from such discussions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jan 22, 2014)

Here is an observation by an OPC Pastor that is very good. Antinomianism: Past and Present | Patrick’s Pensees



> The term antinomian is a compound word that literally means “against law.” Due to its etymology, some people tend to think that the label should only apply to those who reject the moral law altogether. Historically, however, this has not been the case. The Westminster Divines, who focused more on Antinomianism than any other doctrinal error of their day, applied the term to a number of related theological errors besides wholesale rejection of the moral law. Hence, one could affirm a particular understanding of the third use of the law and yet still be an antinomian, at least according to the Westminster Divines.
> 
> Tobias Crisp is a case in point. The Westminster Assembly condemned a book of his sermons and even considered having it burned for its antinomianism. Clearly they were not too fond of Crisp’s teaching. And yet Crisp was a godly man who insisted on holiness. Daniel Williams, a 17th century dissenting minister, greatly disliked Tobias Crisp’s theological views. Despite his overly zealous campaign against “Crispianism,” Williams willingly acknowledged that Crisp affirmed that the moral law remains a rule of duty for the believer and that the elect ought and will be holy.
> 
> ...





Dr. Chappell's observation at the very beginning is so over simplistic that it really doesn't address the situation and actually can be a hinderance in some ways. If someone really desires to gain some grounding in the doctrine I heartily recommend Mark Jones' book Antinomianism. I thought Richard Phillips was the better of the contributors and actually tried to address the situation. 

I heartily recommend Mark's book. It is gracious, and very Pastoral. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? Jones, Mark 9781596388154


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 22, 2014)

Jack K said:


> I do believe part of a pastor's job is to get to know the people he's ministering to



More,
to know the scriptures, have a gift to teach them, systematically, relying on the Holy Spirit to illuminate the understanding of the hearers.
Trying to decide if people need to hear "grace" or "law" or mostly justification rather than sanctification is SERIOUS error, causes great harm. Pastors/teacher who do so will be held to a higher standard (James 4:1). Opinions do not get around that.

Even more true for denominations with a confession about the doctrines.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> Trying to decide if people need to hear "grace" or "law" or mostly justification rather than sanctification is SERIOUS error, causes great harm.



Without addressing the question of whether or not those terms are the best ones to use, I'll agree and take it a step further: I submit that it's usually wise (and it fits a common Biblical model) to teach both _together_, in a single teaching session.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I heartily recommend Mark's book. It is gracious, and very Pastoral. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? Jones, Mark 9781596388154



I've read that book, of course. I especially appreciated the historical background (and I learned a lot from that) and found myself in substantial agreement. The main thing that didn't quite work for me is that my experience with "grace" people doesn't fit the book's description of current-day concerns. That might be just because I'm getting old and am out of touch with a younger set of people who're getting things wrong. Still, aside from maybe one or two writers whom I agree fit his definition of antinomian, I haven't actually encountered many people in the Reformed world who're like that.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 22, 2014)

For those who don't yet have the book, what is Dr. Jones' definition in question?


Jack K said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I heartily recommend Mark's book. It is gracious, and very Pastoral. Antinomianism: Reformed Theology's Unwelcome Guest? Jones, Mark 9781596388154
> ...


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

NaphtaliPress said:


> what is Dr. Jones' definition in question?



It's multifaceted, and so it's difficult to describe in a sentence or two. To Jones, antinomianism is not necessarily a theological belief but rather is often more of a ministry emphasis. In general, it's an elevation of justification to the point of pushing aside sanctification or an elevation of Christ's work to the point of pushing aside his person. (I think that for Jones, person-of-Christ is some mix of what I'd call the offices of Prophet and King while work-of-Christ is mostly associated with his office as Priest... though that's probably an oversimplification.)

I suspect Jones would rather you read his own summary rather than one from me... especially since he might read some of my stuff and conclude _I'm_ antinomian. His Tabletalk article introduces what he says in the book pretty well, I think.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 22, 2014)

Jack:

Thanks for posting this.

I think that the discussion between the three men is a good one. I also think that Mark's book is quite good. I don't hear either the three men in the linked discussion or Dr. Jones saying anything materially different. 

Both justification and sanctfication are benefits of union with Christ. Both need to be clearly taught and preached and this is what I hear these men (and MJ) endeavoring to do. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 22, 2014)

Jack K said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > Trying to decide if people need to hear "grace" or "law" or mostly justification rather than sanctification is SERIOUS error, causes great harm.
> ...



And perhaps even a step further,
THE Biblical model,

and one more step further,
The Westminster Standards, which most of these folks hold by oath.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > Scott1 said:
> ...



Yes, I think it's probably right to say it is THE biblical model, though my wariness of stating absolutes leads me to phrase it a tad less strongly than that.

It is still interesting, though, that while you and I (and probably the men in that video as well) can agree on this, we still see different needs. Some of us are more likely to think, "be sure to also teach the freeness and security of justification whenever you talk about what God says to do." I'm in that camp. But others are more likely to think, "be sure to also teach what God says to do whenever you talk about the freeness and security of justification."

I'm most concerned about teachers who assume the typical Christian already feels secure enough in Christ, and so they largely stop teaching that part of the gospel either because they don't see any practical value in it or out of a mistaken fear that proclaiming that much grace will sound soft on sin and will encourage licentiousness. That's a big mistake I see all the time. But I realize there are others here who're far more concerned about the opposite error.


----------



## Scott1 (Jan 22, 2014)

Jack K said:


> I'm most concerned about teachers who assume the typical Christian already feels secure enough in Christ, and so they largely stop teaching that part of the gospel either because they don't see any practical value in it or out of a mistaken fear that proclaiming that much grace will sound soft on sin and will encourage licentiousness.



Yes,
and this is masquerading under the error of what is loosely referred to as "the contemporary grace movement."
It's not contemporary.
It's not grace.
And its error is not new, but unfortunately, has made it even into reformed circles.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 22, 2014)

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > I'm most concerned about teachers who assume the typical Christian already feels secure enough in Christ, and so they largely stop teaching that part of the gospel either because they don't see any practical value in it or out of a mistaken fear that proclaiming that much grace will sound soft on sin and will encourage licentiousness.
> ...



Hmm. I can't tell whether you think my concern is an error or you are agreeing with me. That's probably because my original thought came out too convoluted. What belief or practice in particular are you saying is an error? Is it something I or someone in that video affirmed, or is it something you've heard elsewhere?


----------

