I am thankful that there is a theology that is closer to God's Heart than any other. That is what I called "The Theology of Sonship", is where "the rubber meets the road". At first I didnot understood this "Sonship Theology", but is the gospel at full throttle. Now when you think of Sonship Theology? What comes into your mind?
Sonship Theology
- Thread starter Infralap
- Start date
- Status
I am thankful that there is a theology that is closer to God's Heart than any other. That is what I called "The Theology of Sonship", is where "the rubber meets the road". At first I didnot understood this "Sonship Theology", but is the gospel at full throttle. Now when you think of Sonship Theology? What comes into your mind?We act either as Son's of God or as orphans in ministry! Everything we do, study and belive in, from: Historical Theology, Systematic Theology, counseling, Christian living, etc. is in view or in direct proportion to our standing in Christ. Yes we know that we are saved/born again (for those who believe they are). But ...Do we act as son's or as orphans? This is the begining of the Sonship Theology.
BTW... thank you Joshua! and Sorry Craig for missleading with the pic of my fisrt born (little Leo) in this topic. Providencially, is in the gift of fatherhood that I understood this to a greater degree.
BTW... thank you Joshua! and Sorry Craig for missleading with the pic of my fisrt born (little Leo) in this topic. Providencially, is in the gift of fatherhood that I understood this to a greater degree.
openairboy
Puritan Board Freshman
I think Governor Arnold said it best, "Girly men theologians." Most of the guys I have interacted with on Sonship seem rather soft to me and are dominated by cliches and one liners. I see it as a cultural trend that will soon pass.
I have also found very little reason to interact with it. Those who have "cheered up, b/c they were worse off than they thought were" think you are denying the Gospel if you disagree with them, so the discussion usually centers around them pointing a finger at you and yelling, with a "humble, winsom smile" on their face, "Oh, poor you, you just don't understand grace."
That's what comes to my mind.
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
Are we talking about the Jack Miller stuff? The PCA did one of their umpired debates on this topic back in 2001.
Sonship Theology: Blessing or Bane?
Sonship Theology: Blessing or Bane?
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
turmeric
Megerator
Okay, it's not Miles Stanford, he was a Dispensational. The way I was taught about the "higher life" I was supposed to become someone who spent hours & hours praying & reading Scripture, supposed to be way into "worship", and have all these MASSIVE religious affections. Couldn't do it, not even after the "experience" that was supposed to make me that way. I never really learned to "let go & let God" until I became Reformed. The thing is, they were trying to become "less sinful", and I think instead God is making us into a different (new) creature. He does that through discipline and the means of grace, but we aren't directing this, how would we know where we need to go? Okay, I'm trying to recover from Keswick, and hope this isn't another version of it; but I think quietists actually work harder than non-quietists, trying to get into a place where God will do it all for them. Now I don't have to try to do all that stuff to get into the right place, and it turns out that since I've been converted, I actually want to read the Bible & talk to God.
Feel free to critique this, I'm sure it will help me clarify my thoughts. Thanks.
Feel free to critique this, I'm sure it will help me clarify my thoughts. Thanks.
This is not Miles Stanford... This is application of the Gospel. For we make theories and follow doctrine and theology, but neglect love and justice. Some of us feel supreme for being right and our disposition to the lost and to other believers is sinful. WHY? because we trying to show how much we know but might not be known by God as Son's. Did Jesus presented the truth (knowledge ) in a kocky disposition. Or did he pursue the teachers and challenge them. No he was the one being challange. Christ preached the gospel at the leve of the person who desire to hear him. wheteher by rebukes, acts of loves, etc.
We could be right in our theology and doctrines but is how we share this and in what Spirit that says wheather we are Son's of God (Sonship Theology) or orphans
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
So long as we are not talking about Sonship theologyt hat is running through Prebyterian denominations right now. That stuff is bad news.
This is "sonship" theology:
All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,[1] by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God,[2] have his name put upon them,[3] receive the Spirit of adoption,[4] have access to the throne of grace with boldness,[5] are enabled to cry, Abba, Father,[6] are pitied,[7] protected,[8] provided for,[9] and chastened by him, as by a father:]j] yet never cast off,[11] but sealed to the day of redemption;[12] and inherit the promises,[13] as heirs of everlasting salvation.[14]
1. Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:4-5
2. Rom. 8:17; John 1:12
3. Num. 6:24-26; Jer. 14:9; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17; II Cor. 6:18; Rev. 3:12
4. Rom. 8:15
5. Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16
6. Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6
7. Psa. 103:13
8. Prov. 14:26
9. Matt. 6:30, 32; I Peter 5:7
10. Heb. 12:6
11. Lam. 3:31-32; Psa. 89:30-35
12. Eph. 4:30
13. Heb. 6:12
14. I Peter 1:3-4; Heb. 1:14
This is "sonship" theology:
All those that are justified, God vouchsafeth, in and for his only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,[1] by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of the children of God,[2] have his name put upon them,[3] receive the Spirit of adoption,[4] have access to the throne of grace with boldness,[5] are enabled to cry, Abba, Father,[6] are pitied,[7] protected,[8] provided for,[9] and chastened by him, as by a father:]j] yet never cast off,[11] but sealed to the day of redemption;[12] and inherit the promises,[13] as heirs of everlasting salvation.[14]
1. Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:4-5
2. Rom. 8:17; John 1:12
3. Num. 6:24-26; Jer. 14:9; Amos 9:12; Acts 15:17; II Cor. 6:18; Rev. 3:12
4. Rom. 8:15
5. Eph. 3:12; Heb. 4:16
6. Rom. 8:15-16; Gal. 4:6
7. Psa. 103:13
8. Prov. 14:26
9. Matt. 6:30, 32; I Peter 5:7
10. Heb. 12:6
11. Lam. 3:31-32; Psa. 89:30-35
12. Eph. 4:30
13. Heb. 6:12
14. I Peter 1:3-4; Heb. 1:14
Originally posted by turmeric
Infralap, how can any Christian be an orphan? Actually, the Scripture seems to say we were runaways and traitors, now we are adopted.
Webmaster, aren't we adopted because we are justified? Isn't "adoption" another metaphor for justification? Help!
We are adopted because we are justified, but adoption and justification are not the same thing. Justification is a legal/courtroom transaction, adoption is a familial/living room transaction.
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by turmeric
Infralap, how can any Christian be an orphan? Actually, the Scripture seems to say we were runaways and traitors, now we are adopted.
By the act of Justification we are adopted in the beloved. Thus we cry "œAbba, Father" by the spirit. However, in our thinking, actions and spirituality, the majority of confessing believers behave as orphans. I am not talking before justification/adoption, where we are traitors, enemies of God, etc. But is when we confess God as our Father and don´t trust Him as "œOUR FATHER" (emphasis). And our religious actions (Christian life) are one of an orphan, trusting in our strength, our intellects, our past experiences rather than the power of Christ and His Gospel. As Son we are free and yet we act as slave. Although, I am not talking about the joys of being a slave to Christ and His gospel; But rather a slave to our self, strength, intellects, experiences, etc.
In addition, our actions as orphans are not only directed to God but most importantly our brethren. For how can we say that we love Him whom we have not seen and yet hate our brothers. It seems that we have more love and compassion for our jobs, hobbies and pets than for our brothers. A vivid example of our behavior as orphans is clear in the new movie "œLUTHER", as he comes into Wittenberg, there was a young man (Child) who took his life (suicide) and the church (orphan brothers if brothers at all) could not allow to have the boy buried in "œHoly Ground". It may have been an act for excommunication, yet Luther acted as a son by burying the boy were forbidden by the church. But if this will not suffice as an example, then think of the times we have neglected our services for God´s people for menial learning or by harsh judgment. Like what is written in Ecclesiastes "œthere is a time or everything".
(Luther´s movie is tremendous for church history teaching at the local church level)
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Some Help on the Sonship Lectures
The Sonship Program For Revival: A Summary And Critique1 "” Chad B. Van Dixhoorn
*Chad B. Van Dixhoorn is Th.M. student at Westminster Theological Seminary.
The Sonship program originated as a Bible study led by C. John (Jack) Miller for New Life Presbyterian Church in Jenkintown (Pa.) that trained church members in evangelism. The program actually stemmed from Miller´s own efforts while with his family in Spain. Overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, alone with his Bible, Miller studied the promises of Scripture for three and a half months culminating in a mountaintop experience, or its seaside equivalent. He returned to America with two things on his mind, adoption and revival.2
First as a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and later in the Presbyterian Church in America, Dr. Miller was an increasingly enthusiastic evangelist, and in the early 1980s thought he would steer the outreach of his local church into a non-denominational mission organization. He did it, and World Harvest Mission, with Sonship as its main teaching vehicle, has been flourishing ever since.3 The ever-growing community which Sonship serves is a source of encouragement and support for World Harvest. And if Sonship is not a movement yet, it is designed to be. World Harvest promotional material proudly announces that "œToday over one hundred people serve [World Harvest] on four continents." World Harvest "œis a member in good standing of the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies," of the
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 228
"œEvangelical Council for Financial Accountability," and, of course, it has a website.4
The teaching of World Harvest through its Sonship course is the focus of this article. What follows is an analysis of Sonship from a Reformed and Presbyterian perspective, first, because it is primarily Presbyterians who are advocating Sonship, or, in the case of certain missions boards, requiring Sonship, and second, because the architect of the program, C. John Miller, was himself a Presbyterian minister. While he could never resist a joke at the expense of Presbyterians, Miller delighted in his church and its doctrinal standards and held firmly to the Scriptures and, secondarily, to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. After a description of Sonship this article raises several questions about the program. Although Sonship has succeeded admirably in emphasizing the sovereignty of God´s grace, it nonetheless reflects several weaknesses that undermine its intention to promote the Reformed faith and ministry. Specifically, the concern here is whether a church should experiment with the Sonship course in order to experience revival.
I. Sonship: Goals and Methods
One lens for viewing Sonship is to see the program through the goals of the organization which it primarily serves, World Harvest. Harvest has a broad "œthreefold vision for life and ministry""”to "œtestify to the gospel of God´s grace"”(1) to Ourselves "¦ (2) to the Church "¦ [and] (3) to the World." The outworking of this threefold vision sometimes takes the form of local or international church planting, sometimes a conference, sometimes individual missionaries or local churches taking the Sonship course. At all times, however, the goal is to experience revival.5
Another way of determining the goals of Sonship is to look at its promotional material. In a brochure for missionaries, its promoters pose a few modest questions:
What would ongoing revival look like in your life? God changing you in ways you never dreamed possible? Prayer more natural and spontaneous throughout your day? Evangelism effectiveness increased? Broken relationships healed? Your teenagers in love with Jesus? Living more in partnership with Christ? A diminishing concern for what others think of you? Increasing surrender to Jesus´ leading in your financial decisions? Growing ability to love and forgive the painful people in your life? Growing power to "œbe one" with people very different from yourself?
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 229
Abounding more in joy and peace regardless of your circumstances? Your marriage, good as it may be, getting much better? Do you think it is even possible for Jesus to change you deeply after all these years since you were first saved?6
It is clear that for some that Sonship contains the answers to all these questions"”but of course the program is not automatically effective and the brochure is quick to say so: "œIt´s not the course that changes lives; it´s Jesus. The course is merely designed to point you to Jesus"¦ . While there´s no guarantee that anything will happen in a particular trainee unless the Spirit works, we have seen God bless this training in the lives of many missionaries."7 In another place, we are told that the "œSpirit uses many means to kindle revival"¦ . World Harvest has found the above means [Sonship], among others, to be effective to that end."8 Whether Sonship is effective or not, its goal at every turn is clear: revival.
The method used to promote revival is primarily that of Sonship training. This preparation normally involves four steps that are followed with more or less regularity. (1) It begins with a week-long conference. (2) This is followed by a 16-week course of instruction centered around the Sonship training manual.9 If the course is taken long-distance by a missionary, a Sonship Trainer is provided to counsel and encourage the trainee over the telephone. If it is taken in a local church, an intimate Bible study replaces the telephone counseling. (3) The pastor and his wife, when finished the course, are termed "œalumni" or "œgraduates." Their task is to "œbegin a Sonship Course with a small group in the congregation that is hungry for revival."10 (4) The final stage is an outgrowth of the former and requires an every-member-ministry framework: "œthese people in turn become disciples of others in a larger Sonship Course." A church´s completion of all these "œsteps may take two or three years."11
According to Jack Miller, there are six major emphases to the program:
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 230
1. Understanding justification by faith and our adoption, and using this assurance of God´s love to develop"”
2. Regular early morning devotions,
3. Tongue control,
4. Skills in journal-keeping, discipling, and witnessing,
5. Gift identification,
6. Capacity to work within a team and small groups.12
The first emphasis is a theological one; the other five are the results of that theology imbibed by the individual Christian.13
II. Sonship: Its Theology
As one might expect, Sonship emphasizes the biblical doctrine of adoption. The program is saturated with the language of adoption, the fatherhood of God, sonship and talk of orphans.14 Jack Miller and his family revel in the fact that Jesus is not ashamed to be called their brother. They celebrate that the king of the universe is, through Christ, their father. They wonder that they who were once aliens, strangers and slaves are now children with an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. Jack Miller tells his audience all this with the purpose of consigning them, as he says, to a life of joy.15
Less predictable is Sonship´s emphasis on the subject of justification. From the very first lesson, "œGod Has Made You His Son/Daughter," the course is suffused with the doctrine of justification, and references to Martin Luther´s commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. At the heart of the Sonship endeavor is a desire to keep Christians from looking to their own righteousness instead of to Christ Jesus. Jack Miller wants Christians to go through life assured of the Father´s unconditional love for them. All praise and glory is given to God when the Millers speak of their own life history, their daughter Barbara´s history, and when they relate the testimonies and stories of others. The material is filled from beginning to end with a lively litany of encouraging stories and anecdotes about the Millers and their travels. Throughout the course comes one recurring message, namely, God´s way of
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 231
keeping us dependent on him alone for salvation, is through justification and adoption. The flip side of this teaching is seen as something of a counseling panacea. Sonship teaches that a chief problem with Christians is their tendency to act as orphans"”they seek acceptance everywhere; they are, in Jack Miller´s words, "œapproval sucks." So long as this is the prevailing problem, Sonship is the cure, reminding Christians that they are loved by a heavenly Father.16
In addition to adoption and justification, Sonship also focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit in testifying to our adoption as God´s children. The ministry of the Spirit is emphasized in many chapters"”Jack Miller states that "œ[a]t the heart of the ministry of the Spirit is sonship."17 And in saying this Dr. Miller is showing that he has more Reformation heroes beside Martin Luther, for this is a paraphrase of John Calvin. In enumerating the names of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, Calvin states that first, the Spirit "œis called the "˜Spirit of adoption´ because he is the witness to us of the free benevolence of God with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved and only-begotten Son to become a Father to us."18 Throughout the Institutes and other of Calvin´s writings, this language of adoption and fatherhood is thick on the pages. It is no less so in the Sonship training manual.
Finally, Sonship repeatedly focuses on its goal: revival. The program exhibits a very positive estimation of George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening, but promulgates something even more intense.19 The eighteenth-century revival preachers had their hearers revived or converted once"”the authors of Sonship believe that continuous faith and repentance should and will lead to an experience of continuous revival in the life of the Christian and the church. "œWhat we have discovered," they write, "œis that the same Gospel that brings salvation to non-Christians, also brings revival to Christians! And that a steady diet of the Gospel, leading to a lifestyle of ongoing repentance, gets the attention of the Spirit which leads to ongoing revival in the life of a believer"¦ ."20 They characterize their ministry as a "œrevival ministry" or "œrevival work," and World
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 232
Harvest has revival teams and a "œrevival department." 21 Revival is, without qualification, set up as a healthy standard for church growth and individual piety.
There is a great deal about Sonship that commends itself to the participant and moves many churches to experiment with the program. On a monetary level, the cost of Sonship seminars, while expensive for a Bible study, is afford able compared to other courses.22 Sonship also is tailored to be accessible to any participant. On a theological level, the course emphasizes key Christian doctrines and Christ. Sonship is not skittish about sinfulness and depravity. "œCheer up," Jack Miller keeps saying, "œyou´re a whole lot worse than you think."23 Nor do the lectures stop there. On a truly more cheerful note the course magnifies the greatness of grace. The material is very clear that it is God who justifies sinners, and that this justification is through faith alone, by God´s grace alone, in Christ alone.24 Throughout the course the student is pointed to Christ Jesus as a mighty savior. Nothing could be clearer. And closely linked to this, the course is useful for reminding the participants of who they are in Christ. Many have testified to the role which this emphasis has played in their Christian walk. "œCheer up," Miller says again, "œGod´s grace is a whole lot bigger than you could ever imagine."25
The material also makes useful distinctions where others have not. The lectures stress, for example, the close association between faith and repentance in the life of the believer. While some have stressed this connection to the point of coalescing the two, the Sonship course stops short of such a hostile takeover. One can easily gather from the material that faith and repentance are connected, that they always accompany one another wherever they go and yet they are distinct. When Sonship speaks of faith, it has not crammed anything into the term that the Scriptures do not allow. This, among other emphases, is appreciated.
There are, however, some concerns that the material does raise. The three key areas of difficulty are (1) Sonship´s teaching on adoption itself; (2) Sonship ´s teaching regarding sanctification and the role of the Holy Spirit in assurance; (3) and on a different note, Sonship´s theology of continuous personal revival. The difficulties vary in acuteness from muddled presentation needing clarification to larger errors needing correction.26
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 233
III. Sonship: A Critique
1. Adoption
The course recaptures well the first of Martin Luther´s 95 theses when it stresses that repentance is not an event of a moment but that repentance is for all of life.27 Rick Downs makes this point throughout lesson seven. And if Downs had stayed with his positive statements his material would be superb. But unfortunately he burdens the material by critiquing the Reformed ordo salutis and attempting a reconstruction. The end result is very confusing. 28
Downs complains, quite correctly, that repentance has often been seen as one event in a chain of events, which can lead to the harmful idea that repentance only occurs once. He states that repentance is better understood as something characterizing the whole of the Christian life. He argues with less clarity that faith and repentance should precede not only justification, but also sanctification and "œunion with Christ and adoption."29 It is the last phrase which points to a recurring misunderstanding in the material.
It is regrettable that Downs´ construction of the Reformed ordo salutis makes union with Christ almost synonymous with adoption. Rather than seeing union with Christ as that from which the graces of justification and adoption and sanctification flow, Downs sees adoption, like union with Christ, as an overarching theme from which other graces emerge. This is an exaggerated view of adoption, and an unfortunate one. Reformed theology has with increasing clarity emphasized that one is regenerated, justified, sanctified and adopted because of union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Stated differently, what Downs attributes to adoption, John Murray and Reformed theology ascribes to union with Christ. While holding to a traditional ordo salutis, John Murray argues that union with Christ "œis not simply a step in the application of redemption; when viewed, according to the teaching of Scripture, in its broader aspects it underlies every step of application of redemption." He goes on to state that "œunion with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ."30 The same cannot be said of adoption.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 234
Adoption, contrary to Sonship´s teaching, is not related to the benefits of justification or regeneration or sanctification in the same way that union with Christ is related to these benefits. All of these blessings are results of being in Christ, not results of being adopted. Perhaps Sonship intends to communicate that adoption is the premier manifestation of union with Christ, and the primary form that the believer´s consciousness of union with Christ takes. Further lectures and future editions of Sonship could benefit by greater clarity in these areas.
While Sonship at times presents adoption too broadly, it is not consistent in doing so. Frequently, it finds itself at the opposite pole and presents adoption narrowly, as merely the flip side of justification. In the first lecture of the course Jack Miller begins well and informs his audience that both justification and adoption have in common that they are legal acts of a gracious God. He further states, by way of metaphor, that justification and adoption have different functions or roles in the life of the Christian: "œI´m not just a criminal being pardoned by the governor, but I´m the criminal being pardoned by the governor and made a son of the governor."31 Miller here is arguing that justification and adoption contain two distinct promises of God for the believer; though both constitute legal relationships, both represent wholly different ways of the believer´s relating to Jesus Christ. This is a theme and distinction that one would hope that Miller and others would major on"”particularly in a course on adoption. Unfortunately this truth is only mentioned one other time, and is subsequently negated wherever formal definitions of justification or adoption are propounded.32
Under the heading: "œA Summary of Justification," the reader is explicitly told that "œJustification may be defined as that gracious and judicial act of God whereby he declares believing sinners righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which is credited to them, forgives all their sins, adopts them as his children, and gives them the right to eternal life."33 This definition clearly subsumes adoption under justification. That Sonship merges adoption into justification is placed beyond doubt when the material goes on to state that "œJustification has both a negative and a positive side. On the negative side, it means the forgiveness of our sins. On the positive side, it includes our adoption as children of God and our reception of the right of
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 235
eternal life."34 And again, under the heading, "œThe Positive Side of Justification," the student is told that "œJustification includes more than the forgiveness of sins. Through his law-keeping obedience Christ perfectly kept the law for us, earning for us the right to be adopted as children of God and to have eternal life."35 This should be a problem for Presbyterians. The Westminster Standards put forth a distinction between justification and adoption and this is reflected in the catechisms, and in the very chapter divisions found in the Confession.36 Of course, not all Presbyterians have agreed with the Confession here. Perhaps the most notable exception is Robert Lewis Dabney. While Dabney was slave to no one´s opinion, he follows Francis Turretin closely in the doctrine of justification. It is Dabney who says that adoption is only the positive side of justification"”and where Turretin gives the doctrine a few pages, Dabney gives the doctrine only a few lines.37 There is some irony to be found in the fact that Sonship follows the teaching of Turretin and Dabney, who have both had to bear posthumous abuse for minimizing the doctrine of adoption.38 However, there is not only
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 236
irony, but a real difference between Sonship and the Confession.39 Such a merging of distinct doctrines takes a toll.
One cost of such a merger is a confused doctrine of justification. Sonship correctly states that the "œnegative" side of justification is the forgiveness of sins. But it incorrectly states that adoption is the positive side of justification. The positive side of justification is the imputation of Christ´s righteousness, not adoption. Of course Sonship teaches the imputation of Christ´s righteousness. The problem is that this imputation is not taught adequately. The imputation of Christ´s righteousness comes, for example, in the glossary of terms in the rear of the manual. Even there, however, while all of the elements in justification are present, adoption is again made a mere suburb of justification.40 And there is another loss in this merger.
The reason why Miller mentioned the distinction between adoption and justification the first time was to point out their distinct benefits: that of the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ imputed on the one hand, and the believer´s adoption into God´s family on the other. There are, of course, common benefits derived from all these gifts, such as "œassurance of God´s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end."41 But there are also distinct blessings and privileges that the Christian derives from each of these graces. There is one comfort derived from the judicial forgiveness of sins. It is the joy of being acquitted in court. There is another comfort found in the familial security and blessing and inheritance that flows from becoming a child of God. It is the joy of having a father and a family with whom this new freedom can be shared. To miss the distinctive blessings of adoption by merging adoption into justification is a large tax for the Christian to bear.42 If Miller´s one-time distinction between justification and adoption was pervasive throughout the material, Sonship would be much improved.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 237
2. Sanctification
As much as one might regret the confusion between the doctrines of adoption and justification themselves, Sonship is to be commended for clarity regarding the Triune author of these graces. One cannot complete a third of the course without knowing that God the Son has a particular role in the justification of sinners, that God the Father reveals his glory in making sons out of slaves and orphans, and that God the Holy Spirit receives particular attention and honor as the Spirit of adoption.43 And one cannot travel far beyond that without hearing that the Holy Spirit also receives accolades as the author of sanctification. But here the course pulls up short. While Sonship praises the Spirit of sanctification, it still presents a truncated view of the Holy Spirit´s work in that sanctification; it does not give the Holy Spirit his full due.
One path toward understanding this shortcoming is to look at Sonship as a study on the Christian´s assurance of faith. The best treatments of assurance never lecture on the doctrine of assurance itself, but on God and his redemptive work in Christ. Miller wisely follows this pattern. Sonship speaks of who the believer is by nature of the Father´s work: children, loved by the Father. The course speaks of who the believer is by nature of the Son´s work: one totally forgiven, and declared righteous in God´s sight. Sonship also points out the work of Holy Spirit in witnessing to the Father´s work in adoption"”and then the student is handed the "œCross Chart," courtesy of Richard Lovelace.44
In a series of diagrams and accompanying explanations, the participant is told that as he or she goes through the Christian life, there will be a growth of knowledge both in understanding God´s holiness and in seeing one´s own sin.45 Paul Miller argues that "œbeing holier equals feeling less holy."46 As this understanding grows, the believer realizes more and more how much the gospel is needed and how great the redeemer is. The laudable purpose of this emphasis is to keep the Christian from relying on himself for hope and life, and to keep the believer looking to Christ´s person and work, and trusting the Father.
An increasing knowledge of the believer´s sin and God´s holiness is, to be sure, one dynamic in the Christian life and echoes one important facet of the Westminster Confession´s teaching on the Christian experience. Chapter 13:2 states that "œsanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part: whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." We clearly see corruption in ourselves. But this is where Sonship stops. It is as if Sonship had never heard
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 238
of section three in the same chapter of the Confession. The Divines go on to say that in this "œwar, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." This is far from clear in Sonship´s teaching.
To be fair, if the lecturers were to be asked if there is such a thing as growth in holiness, the answer would be "œyes." For example, Paul Miller says that "œthe truth is "¦ what is going on internally is that while my outward holiness is growing, inwardly I am feeling much worse about my ability to love people."47 Lesson ten even provides a graph to picture this growth in holiness.48 But while the course states that there is an actual subjective increase of holiness in the believer; and while the Millers testify that they have been changed by these doctrines; and while one of the goals of the course is "œtongue control," (something the apostle James says is an incredible sign of Christian growth)"”Sonship still stresses that the believer cannot see this growth. The course, following Luther and citing Galatians, teaches that the law serves to condemn and convict.49 Thus, the believer sees only his sinfulness "”or at least should only see his sinfulness, driving him back to the cross again and again for continuous revival.50
According to Sonship, there is real danger in seeing one´s own growth in righteousness. Looking at covenant keeping or growth in holiness tends to spawn judgmental attitudes and pride on the one hand, or complete despondency over sin on the other hand.51 Sonship allows the believer to look at the Father´s work in adoption for comfort. The believer may also look to Christ´s work and justification for comfort. But the believer may never look at the "œsanctifying Spirit of Christ" for encouragement, not even as a minor emphasis in the Christian walk. In this way Sonship´s doctrine of assurance is not as Trinitarian as it could be.52
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 239
I suspect that the Sonship course would look very different if it were to balance its teaching on Galatians with the teaching of the apostle John in his first epistle. This book can be viewed from the perspective of assurance. He tells his readers in 1 John 5:13, "œI write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." And it is worthy of note that John repeatedly refers to the Father (twelve references in this short epistle). "œHow great is the love the Father has lavished on us," John says, "œthat we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" Furthermore, John begins his epistle speaking of the word of life and forgiveness through Christ. He reminds his audience that they know that they are in Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13). But the point to see is that when John speaks of assurance, he also frequently makes a connection between assurance and obedience. He is not afraid to look to the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
John is of the mind that "œwe know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands" (1 John 2:3). He reminds his readers that "œif you know that he [Jesus] is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him" (1 John 2:29). John says again in chapter 5:2, "œThis is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands." These are not simply exhortations to obedience but statements of epistemology. John is speaking about our self-knowledge. "œWe know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands." The Sonship material, in effect, assumes a minor premise which says that we are not obeying his commands. It assumes that all we can see in ourselves is law-breaking and sin. But if this assumption obtains, then John is damning, not comforting, his hearers.
Stated differently, John is saying that the believer´s good works matter. At times our actions, our good works, commend us to the Father. John says as much in 1 John 3:19"“22:
This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
There is such a thing as a time when a conscience does not condemn the believer, but commends a believer to the Father. Of course neither the apostles nor, derivatively, the Westminster Divines are arguing that the basis or foundation or grounds of our hope is resting on any fruit we see.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 240
They are not suggesting that justification involves a subjective infusion of righteousness. The believer is never to look to his or her own righteousness as meriting the favor of God. 53Believers are accepted through Christ alone. 54
The Confession is echoing the apostle Paul´s teaching: what God has started he will be faithful to complete. He has saved us unto good works (Eph 2:10). To the degree that we do see the work of the Spirit in our lives we are to be encouraged and give thanks for that work. Noting our growth in grace will, as Sonship worries, breed pride"”if we forget that it is grace.55 Our own keeping of the covenant with God presupposes God´s grace in our covenant keeping. It is God "œwho works in us both to will and to act" (Phil 2:13). As Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster Divines, puts it, the Spirit "œ[w]rites first all graces in us, and then teaches us to read his handwriting." 56 Instead of avoiding this biblical emphasis because of possible abuses, it would be better to teach it carefully and in its proper place. If Sonship would take a healthy dose of the first epistle of John, it would help keep its students from feeling proud or guilty for seeing growth in grace; it would encourage them by God´s grace to work out their salvation (Phil 2:12), and it would credit the Holy Spirit for his work in the believer´s life. This need to credit the work of the Holy Spirit is closely connected to the final concern about Sonship, namely, revival.
3. Sonship´s theology of revival
There is a sense in which the experience of "œrevival" that the Sonship program speaks of is not really revival at all. "œRevival," the student is told, "œis just the life of the Lord Jesus poured into human hearts"¦ . In other words, it is dying to self and self-attitudes. The willingness of Jesus to be broken for us is the all-compelling motive in our being broken too. This is
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 241
not a thing we do once for all, but is a constant dying to self."57 When used in this sense, revival is simply sanctification with an exciting label. The real issue, however, is not Sonship´s labelling or marketing of sanctification; it is Sonship´s conception of what sanctification and a "œconstant dying to self" are to look like. The ordinariness of sanctification or "œrevival" quickly loses its commonness if one hears the Sonship lectures or reads the books recommended by the course. If Jack and Rose Marie Miller and the accounts they relate are any measure of what Sonship considers a model of sanctification, any serious student of Sonship is in for a very bumpy ride.
Frequently participants in the program and the Millers themselves talk of feeling adopted and orphaned in rapid succession, and often they and others compare revival experiences to conversions or even identify them as such.58 Participants in the program, if not revived in the sense of converted, are revived in the sense of greatly sanctified. Often this comes as a result of fully realizing that believers are, according to Sonship, not only justified by faith but "œsanctified by Faith."59 This expression is not the most felicitous word choice in itself and deserves comment.60 A greater problem, however, lies in the historical and theological connections to Methodist piety and the later Keswick movement from which the expression stems.61
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 242
"œSanctification by Faith" is first introduced into the Sonship material in the form of a quotation from Richard Lovelace, whose Dynamics of a Spiritual Life is recommended by World Harvest.62 Lovelace states that like justification, "œsanctification is also attained by faith."63 Whether Jack Miller received this pietistic phrase from Keswick, mediated through Richard Lovelace, or whether he found it in the piety and revivalism of Wesley, with whom both he and Lovelace are equally impressed, the problem remains the same.64
Both Methodism and the Keswick movement stress that huge bounds can be made quickly in sanctification. Wesleyanism even speaks of reaching perfection (variously defined) instantaneously. Lovelace (and Miller) see this as problematic but still hold that they can plunder both movements to take home an evangelical theology of renewal.65 It is possible, they hold, that one can be a stagnant Christian for a long time, only to be dramatically, renewed and revived"”a change that at times is indistinguishable from conversion. In reflecting on Keswick, John Murray argues that this very emphasis is problematic. What is missing, Murray argues, is the definitive aspect of sanctification that has already been accomplished in the believer. What Keswick and Methodism and now Sonship hold out as just around the corner, actually happens at the beginning of the Christian´s walk.66 The result is a stress on what the believer may become"”rather than instructing believers to be what they already are.
"œWe properly think of calling, regeneration, justification, and adoption as acts of God effected once for all," Murray says, "œand not requiring or
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 243
admitting of repetition. It is of their nature to be definitive. But, a consider able part of New Testament teaching places sanctification in this category." 67 He goes on to demonstrate that the apostle Paul teaches definitive sanctification in Romans 6 and throughout his writings where he refers to Christians as those who are already dead and resurrected with Christ; they are sanctified; they are saints. Murray points out that the apostle John teaches the same thing. There is from the beginning an enormous antithesis, a re-aligning, a reorientation in the life of the believer away from sin and towards righteousness. This emphasis is not present in Sonship´s teaching. Rather, it is undermined, by definition, in Sonship´s piety of revival. Revival has never been a term for steady or normal growth. Revival has never stressed becoming who you are in Christ. It is difficult to see how this aspect of Sonship might be remedied when revival is Sonship´s main goal. It must also be said that this teaching is existentially difficult for the believer. Sonship´s theology of ongoing revival offers a very restless bed-fellow for any steady assurance of faith. While the Psalms, for example, or chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession recognize that there can be times of despair or extreme difficulty in the life of the believer, neither recommends this road as the preferred mode of pilgrim travel. And this leads to the final concern that Sonship´s theology of revival raises.
As mentioned above, a World Harvest brochure promoting Sonship maintains that the program is normally effective, but not automatic. It needs the blessing of the Spirit. It states that the "œSpirit uses many means to kindle revival"¦ . World Harvest has found the above means, among others, to be effective to that end."68 There are other means however, more familiar to Presbyterians, that rely on the Spirit and point to Christ. They are found in another instructional program, the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Like Sonship, the Catechism emphasizes faith and repentance as the operating principles of the believer´s life. Answer 85 states, "œTo escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life""”but the Catechism goes on to say something else. The believer is required to use diligently "œall the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption." And what are these outward means? According to the Westminster Assembly, "œthe outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation."69
This is a significant lacuna in Miller´s proposal for fixing the church. The Presbyterian standards stress the word, sacraments and prayer"”things which are ordinary, which God uses in an ordinary way. Miller stresses the extraordinary, a course or a conference or a small group Bible study, and expects
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 244
unusual blessings, ordinarily.70 His model for grace is not public worship and ordinary means. He does not stress "œthe reading, but especially the preaching of the Word;" he stresses every-member-ministry. The sacraments are only twice mentioned in Sonship (and one of those times is a genial reference to private communion). 71Prayer is important, but corporate prayer is given no emphasis in Sonship; Miller´s stress instead is on private devotions, and small group prayers.72 One does not leave the course material with an impression that the workings and worship of the church on the Lord´s Day are paramount in importance. The corporate life of the church and the ordinary means of grace may be implicitly important, but they are not explicitly so. This should give Presbyterians some pause. And it may suggest an answer to the initial question of the essay.
IV. Conclusion
Would it be possible, after remedying its weaknesses, to use the Sonship program in a way that would prove beneficial to the life of Presbyterian congregations? The glossaries could be changed and the definitions reworked without too much difficulty. In theory the lectures could be altered and new speakers could replace old ones, but the materials still leave the impression that a good part of the appeal of Sonship is its original speakers and authors. The lectures could be supplemented by handouts and explanatory or corrective footnotes, and group leaders could be instructed to clarify ambiguities and correct errors. This would not be easy. The clutter provided by merging adoption into justification is pervasive in the material, as is the inadequate treatment of sanctification. Yet, even if Sonship were clarified in these areas it still could not remedy one fundamental problem, namely, its unqualified commitment to revivalism.
Sonship stresses "œongoing revival in the life of the believer, empowering one to obey the command to love God and love others, in a radical,
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 245
Jesus-kind-of-way, that amazes the lost, and draws them to Jesus."73 It is a revival ministry. It expects "œlives of abounding, overflowing faith "¦ leading to surprising obedience and achievement."74 Sonship´s efforts to establish the experience of revival in a church generally begin with reviving the pastor. Paul Miller explains: "œIt is difficult for a local church as a whole to be revived if the pastor himself is not experiencing ongoing revival"75"”a teaching hauntingly familiar with the preaching against the unconverted ministry by George Whitefield, the Tennents, and the Wesleys in the First Great Awakening, and Charles G. Finney´s in the Second Great Awakening. 76Testimonies of pastors being revived or converted abound in World Harvest´s material.77 In fact, not only pastors, but participants and teachers in the program do not always seem clear on whether they are being revived or converted. This confusion is not likely to help the Christian church.
This commitment to revival is also unhealthy since it stresses something which ignores, or at least undermines, the means which Christ ordained and commanded for the edification and blessing of his church. By establishing continuous surprising revival as the standard of piety for the church, Sonship not only causes the individual Christian to look for the extraordinary, but forces the corporate church to do the same.78 In the process Sonship establishes a tension with the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ blesses his church, as revival rarely cooperates with the ordinary.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 246
This is manifested in the program´s assumption that the church adopt an every-member ministry philosophy rather than following Christ´s stipulation that the pastorate fulfill its Great Commission to preach and administer the sacraments.79
In the end, it would be better for churches to emphasize their dependence on the Spirit of God to make the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation. It would be better to go back to the old method of stressing, or even belaboring, the importance of catechesis in families, the primacy of preaching on the Lord´s Day, corporate worship, and trusting that the sacraments will be effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them. If World Harvest offered a course which underscored these things it would be preferable to repairing the existing Sonship course and other new measures. The church would benefit if Presbyterians would be earnest in prayer, asking their God for extraordinary blessing on his ordinary means of grace rather than looking for the experience of ongoing personal revival. Sometimes less is more.
Westminster Theological Seminary. (1999;2002). Westminster Theological Journal Volume 61 (Vol. 61, Page 227-228). Westminster Theological Seminary.
[Edited on 12-31-2004 by webmaster]
The Sonship Program For Revival: A Summary And Critique1 "” Chad B. Van Dixhoorn
*Chad B. Van Dixhoorn is Th.M. student at Westminster Theological Seminary.
The Sonship program originated as a Bible study led by C. John (Jack) Miller for New Life Presbyterian Church in Jenkintown (Pa.) that trained church members in evangelism. The program actually stemmed from Miller´s own efforts while with his family in Spain. Overlooking the Mediterranean Sea, alone with his Bible, Miller studied the promises of Scripture for three and a half months culminating in a mountaintop experience, or its seaside equivalent. He returned to America with two things on his mind, adoption and revival.2
First as a pastor in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and later in the Presbyterian Church in America, Dr. Miller was an increasingly enthusiastic evangelist, and in the early 1980s thought he would steer the outreach of his local church into a non-denominational mission organization. He did it, and World Harvest Mission, with Sonship as its main teaching vehicle, has been flourishing ever since.3 The ever-growing community which Sonship serves is a source of encouragement and support for World Harvest. And if Sonship is not a movement yet, it is designed to be. World Harvest promotional material proudly announces that "œToday over one hundred people serve [World Harvest] on four continents." World Harvest "œis a member in good standing of the Evangelical Fellowship of Mission Agencies," of the
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 228
"œEvangelical Council for Financial Accountability," and, of course, it has a website.4
The teaching of World Harvest through its Sonship course is the focus of this article. What follows is an analysis of Sonship from a Reformed and Presbyterian perspective, first, because it is primarily Presbyterians who are advocating Sonship, or, in the case of certain missions boards, requiring Sonship, and second, because the architect of the program, C. John Miller, was himself a Presbyterian minister. While he could never resist a joke at the expense of Presbyterians, Miller delighted in his church and its doctrinal standards and held firmly to the Scriptures and, secondarily, to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms. After a description of Sonship this article raises several questions about the program. Although Sonship has succeeded admirably in emphasizing the sovereignty of God´s grace, it nonetheless reflects several weaknesses that undermine its intention to promote the Reformed faith and ministry. Specifically, the concern here is whether a church should experiment with the Sonship course in order to experience revival.
I. Sonship: Goals and Methods
One lens for viewing Sonship is to see the program through the goals of the organization which it primarily serves, World Harvest. Harvest has a broad "œthreefold vision for life and ministry""”to "œtestify to the gospel of God´s grace"”(1) to Ourselves "¦ (2) to the Church "¦ [and] (3) to the World." The outworking of this threefold vision sometimes takes the form of local or international church planting, sometimes a conference, sometimes individual missionaries or local churches taking the Sonship course. At all times, however, the goal is to experience revival.5
Another way of determining the goals of Sonship is to look at its promotional material. In a brochure for missionaries, its promoters pose a few modest questions:
What would ongoing revival look like in your life? God changing you in ways you never dreamed possible? Prayer more natural and spontaneous throughout your day? Evangelism effectiveness increased? Broken relationships healed? Your teenagers in love with Jesus? Living more in partnership with Christ? A diminishing concern for what others think of you? Increasing surrender to Jesus´ leading in your financial decisions? Growing ability to love and forgive the painful people in your life? Growing power to "œbe one" with people very different from yourself?
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 229
Abounding more in joy and peace regardless of your circumstances? Your marriage, good as it may be, getting much better? Do you think it is even possible for Jesus to change you deeply after all these years since you were first saved?6
It is clear that for some that Sonship contains the answers to all these questions"”but of course the program is not automatically effective and the brochure is quick to say so: "œIt´s not the course that changes lives; it´s Jesus. The course is merely designed to point you to Jesus"¦ . While there´s no guarantee that anything will happen in a particular trainee unless the Spirit works, we have seen God bless this training in the lives of many missionaries."7 In another place, we are told that the "œSpirit uses many means to kindle revival"¦ . World Harvest has found the above means [Sonship], among others, to be effective to that end."8 Whether Sonship is effective or not, its goal at every turn is clear: revival.
The method used to promote revival is primarily that of Sonship training. This preparation normally involves four steps that are followed with more or less regularity. (1) It begins with a week-long conference. (2) This is followed by a 16-week course of instruction centered around the Sonship training manual.9 If the course is taken long-distance by a missionary, a Sonship Trainer is provided to counsel and encourage the trainee over the telephone. If it is taken in a local church, an intimate Bible study replaces the telephone counseling. (3) The pastor and his wife, when finished the course, are termed "œalumni" or "œgraduates." Their task is to "œbegin a Sonship Course with a small group in the congregation that is hungry for revival."10 (4) The final stage is an outgrowth of the former and requires an every-member-ministry framework: "œthese people in turn become disciples of others in a larger Sonship Course." A church´s completion of all these "œsteps may take two or three years."11
According to Jack Miller, there are six major emphases to the program:
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 230
1. Understanding justification by faith and our adoption, and using this assurance of God´s love to develop"”
2. Regular early morning devotions,
3. Tongue control,
4. Skills in journal-keeping, discipling, and witnessing,
5. Gift identification,
6. Capacity to work within a team and small groups.12
The first emphasis is a theological one; the other five are the results of that theology imbibed by the individual Christian.13
II. Sonship: Its Theology
As one might expect, Sonship emphasizes the biblical doctrine of adoption. The program is saturated with the language of adoption, the fatherhood of God, sonship and talk of orphans.14 Jack Miller and his family revel in the fact that Jesus is not ashamed to be called their brother. They celebrate that the king of the universe is, through Christ, their father. They wonder that they who were once aliens, strangers and slaves are now children with an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. Jack Miller tells his audience all this with the purpose of consigning them, as he says, to a life of joy.15
Less predictable is Sonship´s emphasis on the subject of justification. From the very first lesson, "œGod Has Made You His Son/Daughter," the course is suffused with the doctrine of justification, and references to Martin Luther´s commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. At the heart of the Sonship endeavor is a desire to keep Christians from looking to their own righteousness instead of to Christ Jesus. Jack Miller wants Christians to go through life assured of the Father´s unconditional love for them. All praise and glory is given to God when the Millers speak of their own life history, their daughter Barbara´s history, and when they relate the testimonies and stories of others. The material is filled from beginning to end with a lively litany of encouraging stories and anecdotes about the Millers and their travels. Throughout the course comes one recurring message, namely, God´s way of
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 231
keeping us dependent on him alone for salvation, is through justification and adoption. The flip side of this teaching is seen as something of a counseling panacea. Sonship teaches that a chief problem with Christians is their tendency to act as orphans"”they seek acceptance everywhere; they are, in Jack Miller´s words, "œapproval sucks." So long as this is the prevailing problem, Sonship is the cure, reminding Christians that they are loved by a heavenly Father.16
In addition to adoption and justification, Sonship also focuses on the work of the Holy Spirit in testifying to our adoption as God´s children. The ministry of the Spirit is emphasized in many chapters"”Jack Miller states that "œ[a]t the heart of the ministry of the Spirit is sonship."17 And in saying this Dr. Miller is showing that he has more Reformation heroes beside Martin Luther, for this is a paraphrase of John Calvin. In enumerating the names of the Holy Spirit in Scripture, Calvin states that first, the Spirit "œis called the "˜Spirit of adoption´ because he is the witness to us of the free benevolence of God with which God the Father has embraced us in his beloved and only-begotten Son to become a Father to us."18 Throughout the Institutes and other of Calvin´s writings, this language of adoption and fatherhood is thick on the pages. It is no less so in the Sonship training manual.
Finally, Sonship repeatedly focuses on its goal: revival. The program exhibits a very positive estimation of George Whitefield, John Wesley, Jonathan Edwards and the First Great Awakening, but promulgates something even more intense.19 The eighteenth-century revival preachers had their hearers revived or converted once"”the authors of Sonship believe that continuous faith and repentance should and will lead to an experience of continuous revival in the life of the Christian and the church. "œWhat we have discovered," they write, "œis that the same Gospel that brings salvation to non-Christians, also brings revival to Christians! And that a steady diet of the Gospel, leading to a lifestyle of ongoing repentance, gets the attention of the Spirit which leads to ongoing revival in the life of a believer"¦ ."20 They characterize their ministry as a "œrevival ministry" or "œrevival work," and World
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 232
Harvest has revival teams and a "œrevival department." 21 Revival is, without qualification, set up as a healthy standard for church growth and individual piety.
There is a great deal about Sonship that commends itself to the participant and moves many churches to experiment with the program. On a monetary level, the cost of Sonship seminars, while expensive for a Bible study, is afford able compared to other courses.22 Sonship also is tailored to be accessible to any participant. On a theological level, the course emphasizes key Christian doctrines and Christ. Sonship is not skittish about sinfulness and depravity. "œCheer up," Jack Miller keeps saying, "œyou´re a whole lot worse than you think."23 Nor do the lectures stop there. On a truly more cheerful note the course magnifies the greatness of grace. The material is very clear that it is God who justifies sinners, and that this justification is through faith alone, by God´s grace alone, in Christ alone.24 Throughout the course the student is pointed to Christ Jesus as a mighty savior. Nothing could be clearer. And closely linked to this, the course is useful for reminding the participants of who they are in Christ. Many have testified to the role which this emphasis has played in their Christian walk. "œCheer up," Miller says again, "œGod´s grace is a whole lot bigger than you could ever imagine."25
The material also makes useful distinctions where others have not. The lectures stress, for example, the close association between faith and repentance in the life of the believer. While some have stressed this connection to the point of coalescing the two, the Sonship course stops short of such a hostile takeover. One can easily gather from the material that faith and repentance are connected, that they always accompany one another wherever they go and yet they are distinct. When Sonship speaks of faith, it has not crammed anything into the term that the Scriptures do not allow. This, among other emphases, is appreciated.
There are, however, some concerns that the material does raise. The three key areas of difficulty are (1) Sonship´s teaching on adoption itself; (2) Sonship ´s teaching regarding sanctification and the role of the Holy Spirit in assurance; (3) and on a different note, Sonship´s theology of continuous personal revival. The difficulties vary in acuteness from muddled presentation needing clarification to larger errors needing correction.26
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 233
III. Sonship: A Critique
1. Adoption
The course recaptures well the first of Martin Luther´s 95 theses when it stresses that repentance is not an event of a moment but that repentance is for all of life.27 Rick Downs makes this point throughout lesson seven. And if Downs had stayed with his positive statements his material would be superb. But unfortunately he burdens the material by critiquing the Reformed ordo salutis and attempting a reconstruction. The end result is very confusing. 28
Downs complains, quite correctly, that repentance has often been seen as one event in a chain of events, which can lead to the harmful idea that repentance only occurs once. He states that repentance is better understood as something characterizing the whole of the Christian life. He argues with less clarity that faith and repentance should precede not only justification, but also sanctification and "œunion with Christ and adoption."29 It is the last phrase which points to a recurring misunderstanding in the material.
It is regrettable that Downs´ construction of the Reformed ordo salutis makes union with Christ almost synonymous with adoption. Rather than seeing union with Christ as that from which the graces of justification and adoption and sanctification flow, Downs sees adoption, like union with Christ, as an overarching theme from which other graces emerge. This is an exaggerated view of adoption, and an unfortunate one. Reformed theology has with increasing clarity emphasized that one is regenerated, justified, sanctified and adopted because of union with Christ in his death and resurrection. Stated differently, what Downs attributes to adoption, John Murray and Reformed theology ascribes to union with Christ. While holding to a traditional ordo salutis, John Murray argues that union with Christ "œis not simply a step in the application of redemption; when viewed, according to the teaching of Scripture, in its broader aspects it underlies every step of application of redemption." He goes on to state that "œunion with Christ is really the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation not only in its application but also in its once-for-all accomplishment in the finished work of Christ."30 The same cannot be said of adoption.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 234
Adoption, contrary to Sonship´s teaching, is not related to the benefits of justification or regeneration or sanctification in the same way that union with Christ is related to these benefits. All of these blessings are results of being in Christ, not results of being adopted. Perhaps Sonship intends to communicate that adoption is the premier manifestation of union with Christ, and the primary form that the believer´s consciousness of union with Christ takes. Further lectures and future editions of Sonship could benefit by greater clarity in these areas.
While Sonship at times presents adoption too broadly, it is not consistent in doing so. Frequently, it finds itself at the opposite pole and presents adoption narrowly, as merely the flip side of justification. In the first lecture of the course Jack Miller begins well and informs his audience that both justification and adoption have in common that they are legal acts of a gracious God. He further states, by way of metaphor, that justification and adoption have different functions or roles in the life of the Christian: "œI´m not just a criminal being pardoned by the governor, but I´m the criminal being pardoned by the governor and made a son of the governor."31 Miller here is arguing that justification and adoption contain two distinct promises of God for the believer; though both constitute legal relationships, both represent wholly different ways of the believer´s relating to Jesus Christ. This is a theme and distinction that one would hope that Miller and others would major on"”particularly in a course on adoption. Unfortunately this truth is only mentioned one other time, and is subsequently negated wherever formal definitions of justification or adoption are propounded.32
Under the heading: "œA Summary of Justification," the reader is explicitly told that "œJustification may be defined as that gracious and judicial act of God whereby he declares believing sinners righteous on the basis of the righteousness of Christ which is credited to them, forgives all their sins, adopts them as his children, and gives them the right to eternal life."33 This definition clearly subsumes adoption under justification. That Sonship merges adoption into justification is placed beyond doubt when the material goes on to state that "œJustification has both a negative and a positive side. On the negative side, it means the forgiveness of our sins. On the positive side, it includes our adoption as children of God and our reception of the right of
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 235
eternal life."34 And again, under the heading, "œThe Positive Side of Justification," the student is told that "œJustification includes more than the forgiveness of sins. Through his law-keeping obedience Christ perfectly kept the law for us, earning for us the right to be adopted as children of God and to have eternal life."35 This should be a problem for Presbyterians. The Westminster Standards put forth a distinction between justification and adoption and this is reflected in the catechisms, and in the very chapter divisions found in the Confession.36 Of course, not all Presbyterians have agreed with the Confession here. Perhaps the most notable exception is Robert Lewis Dabney. While Dabney was slave to no one´s opinion, he follows Francis Turretin closely in the doctrine of justification. It is Dabney who says that adoption is only the positive side of justification"”and where Turretin gives the doctrine a few pages, Dabney gives the doctrine only a few lines.37 There is some irony to be found in the fact that Sonship follows the teaching of Turretin and Dabney, who have both had to bear posthumous abuse for minimizing the doctrine of adoption.38 However, there is not only
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 236
irony, but a real difference between Sonship and the Confession.39 Such a merging of distinct doctrines takes a toll.
One cost of such a merger is a confused doctrine of justification. Sonship correctly states that the "œnegative" side of justification is the forgiveness of sins. But it incorrectly states that adoption is the positive side of justification. The positive side of justification is the imputation of Christ´s righteousness, not adoption. Of course Sonship teaches the imputation of Christ´s righteousness. The problem is that this imputation is not taught adequately. The imputation of Christ´s righteousness comes, for example, in the glossary of terms in the rear of the manual. Even there, however, while all of the elements in justification are present, adoption is again made a mere suburb of justification.40 And there is another loss in this merger.
The reason why Miller mentioned the distinction between adoption and justification the first time was to point out their distinct benefits: that of the forgiveness of sins and the righteousness of Christ imputed on the one hand, and the believer´s adoption into God´s family on the other. There are, of course, common benefits derived from all these gifts, such as "œassurance of God´s love, peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and perseverance therein to the end."41 But there are also distinct blessings and privileges that the Christian derives from each of these graces. There is one comfort derived from the judicial forgiveness of sins. It is the joy of being acquitted in court. There is another comfort found in the familial security and blessing and inheritance that flows from becoming a child of God. It is the joy of having a father and a family with whom this new freedom can be shared. To miss the distinctive blessings of adoption by merging adoption into justification is a large tax for the Christian to bear.42 If Miller´s one-time distinction between justification and adoption was pervasive throughout the material, Sonship would be much improved.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 237
2. Sanctification
As much as one might regret the confusion between the doctrines of adoption and justification themselves, Sonship is to be commended for clarity regarding the Triune author of these graces. One cannot complete a third of the course without knowing that God the Son has a particular role in the justification of sinners, that God the Father reveals his glory in making sons out of slaves and orphans, and that God the Holy Spirit receives particular attention and honor as the Spirit of adoption.43 And one cannot travel far beyond that without hearing that the Holy Spirit also receives accolades as the author of sanctification. But here the course pulls up short. While Sonship praises the Spirit of sanctification, it still presents a truncated view of the Holy Spirit´s work in that sanctification; it does not give the Holy Spirit his full due.
One path toward understanding this shortcoming is to look at Sonship as a study on the Christian´s assurance of faith. The best treatments of assurance never lecture on the doctrine of assurance itself, but on God and his redemptive work in Christ. Miller wisely follows this pattern. Sonship speaks of who the believer is by nature of the Father´s work: children, loved by the Father. The course speaks of who the believer is by nature of the Son´s work: one totally forgiven, and declared righteous in God´s sight. Sonship also points out the work of Holy Spirit in witnessing to the Father´s work in adoption"”and then the student is handed the "œCross Chart," courtesy of Richard Lovelace.44
In a series of diagrams and accompanying explanations, the participant is told that as he or she goes through the Christian life, there will be a growth of knowledge both in understanding God´s holiness and in seeing one´s own sin.45 Paul Miller argues that "œbeing holier equals feeling less holy."46 As this understanding grows, the believer realizes more and more how much the gospel is needed and how great the redeemer is. The laudable purpose of this emphasis is to keep the Christian from relying on himself for hope and life, and to keep the believer looking to Christ´s person and work, and trusting the Father.
An increasing knowledge of the believer´s sin and God´s holiness is, to be sure, one dynamic in the Christian life and echoes one important facet of the Westminster Confession´s teaching on the Christian experience. Chapter 13:2 states that "œsanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part: whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh." We clearly see corruption in ourselves. But this is where Sonship stops. It is as if Sonship had never heard
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 238
of section three in the same chapter of the Confession. The Divines go on to say that in this "œwar, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." This is far from clear in Sonship´s teaching.
To be fair, if the lecturers were to be asked if there is such a thing as growth in holiness, the answer would be "œyes." For example, Paul Miller says that "œthe truth is "¦ what is going on internally is that while my outward holiness is growing, inwardly I am feeling much worse about my ability to love people."47 Lesson ten even provides a graph to picture this growth in holiness.48 But while the course states that there is an actual subjective increase of holiness in the believer; and while the Millers testify that they have been changed by these doctrines; and while one of the goals of the course is "œtongue control," (something the apostle James says is an incredible sign of Christian growth)"”Sonship still stresses that the believer cannot see this growth. The course, following Luther and citing Galatians, teaches that the law serves to condemn and convict.49 Thus, the believer sees only his sinfulness "”or at least should only see his sinfulness, driving him back to the cross again and again for continuous revival.50
According to Sonship, there is real danger in seeing one´s own growth in righteousness. Looking at covenant keeping or growth in holiness tends to spawn judgmental attitudes and pride on the one hand, or complete despondency over sin on the other hand.51 Sonship allows the believer to look at the Father´s work in adoption for comfort. The believer may also look to Christ´s work and justification for comfort. But the believer may never look at the "œsanctifying Spirit of Christ" for encouragement, not even as a minor emphasis in the Christian walk. In this way Sonship´s doctrine of assurance is not as Trinitarian as it could be.52
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 239
I suspect that the Sonship course would look very different if it were to balance its teaching on Galatians with the teaching of the apostle John in his first epistle. This book can be viewed from the perspective of assurance. He tells his readers in 1 John 5:13, "œI write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." And it is worthy of note that John repeatedly refers to the Father (twelve references in this short epistle). "œHow great is the love the Father has lavished on us," John says, "œthat we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" Furthermore, John begins his epistle speaking of the word of life and forgiveness through Christ. He reminds his audience that they know that they are in Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:13). But the point to see is that when John speaks of assurance, he also frequently makes a connection between assurance and obedience. He is not afraid to look to the sanctifying work of the Spirit.
John is of the mind that "œwe know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands" (1 John 2:3). He reminds his readers that "œif you know that he [Jesus] is righteous, you know that everyone who does what is right has been born of him" (1 John 2:29). John says again in chapter 5:2, "œThis is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. This is love for God: to obey his commands." These are not simply exhortations to obedience but statements of epistemology. John is speaking about our self-knowledge. "œWe know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands." The Sonship material, in effect, assumes a minor premise which says that we are not obeying his commands. It assumes that all we can see in ourselves is law-breaking and sin. But if this assumption obtains, then John is damning, not comforting, his hearers.
Stated differently, John is saying that the believer´s good works matter. At times our actions, our good works, commend us to the Father. John says as much in 1 John 3:19"“22:
This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him.
There is such a thing as a time when a conscience does not condemn the believer, but commends a believer to the Father. Of course neither the apostles nor, derivatively, the Westminster Divines are arguing that the basis or foundation or grounds of our hope is resting on any fruit we see.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 240
They are not suggesting that justification involves a subjective infusion of righteousness. The believer is never to look to his or her own righteousness as meriting the favor of God. 53Believers are accepted through Christ alone. 54
The Confession is echoing the apostle Paul´s teaching: what God has started he will be faithful to complete. He has saved us unto good works (Eph 2:10). To the degree that we do see the work of the Spirit in our lives we are to be encouraged and give thanks for that work. Noting our growth in grace will, as Sonship worries, breed pride"”if we forget that it is grace.55 Our own keeping of the covenant with God presupposes God´s grace in our covenant keeping. It is God "œwho works in us both to will and to act" (Phil 2:13). As Thomas Goodwin, one of the Westminster Divines, puts it, the Spirit "œ[w]rites first all graces in us, and then teaches us to read his handwriting." 56 Instead of avoiding this biblical emphasis because of possible abuses, it would be better to teach it carefully and in its proper place. If Sonship would take a healthy dose of the first epistle of John, it would help keep its students from feeling proud or guilty for seeing growth in grace; it would encourage them by God´s grace to work out their salvation (Phil 2:12), and it would credit the Holy Spirit for his work in the believer´s life. This need to credit the work of the Holy Spirit is closely connected to the final concern about Sonship, namely, revival.
3. Sonship´s theology of revival
There is a sense in which the experience of "œrevival" that the Sonship program speaks of is not really revival at all. "œRevival," the student is told, "œis just the life of the Lord Jesus poured into human hearts"¦ . In other words, it is dying to self and self-attitudes. The willingness of Jesus to be broken for us is the all-compelling motive in our being broken too. This is
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 241
not a thing we do once for all, but is a constant dying to self."57 When used in this sense, revival is simply sanctification with an exciting label. The real issue, however, is not Sonship´s labelling or marketing of sanctification; it is Sonship´s conception of what sanctification and a "œconstant dying to self" are to look like. The ordinariness of sanctification or "œrevival" quickly loses its commonness if one hears the Sonship lectures or reads the books recommended by the course. If Jack and Rose Marie Miller and the accounts they relate are any measure of what Sonship considers a model of sanctification, any serious student of Sonship is in for a very bumpy ride.
Frequently participants in the program and the Millers themselves talk of feeling adopted and orphaned in rapid succession, and often they and others compare revival experiences to conversions or even identify them as such.58 Participants in the program, if not revived in the sense of converted, are revived in the sense of greatly sanctified. Often this comes as a result of fully realizing that believers are, according to Sonship, not only justified by faith but "œsanctified by Faith."59 This expression is not the most felicitous word choice in itself and deserves comment.60 A greater problem, however, lies in the historical and theological connections to Methodist piety and the later Keswick movement from which the expression stems.61
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 242
"œSanctification by Faith" is first introduced into the Sonship material in the form of a quotation from Richard Lovelace, whose Dynamics of a Spiritual Life is recommended by World Harvest.62 Lovelace states that like justification, "œsanctification is also attained by faith."63 Whether Jack Miller received this pietistic phrase from Keswick, mediated through Richard Lovelace, or whether he found it in the piety and revivalism of Wesley, with whom both he and Lovelace are equally impressed, the problem remains the same.64
Both Methodism and the Keswick movement stress that huge bounds can be made quickly in sanctification. Wesleyanism even speaks of reaching perfection (variously defined) instantaneously. Lovelace (and Miller) see this as problematic but still hold that they can plunder both movements to take home an evangelical theology of renewal.65 It is possible, they hold, that one can be a stagnant Christian for a long time, only to be dramatically, renewed and revived"”a change that at times is indistinguishable from conversion. In reflecting on Keswick, John Murray argues that this very emphasis is problematic. What is missing, Murray argues, is the definitive aspect of sanctification that has already been accomplished in the believer. What Keswick and Methodism and now Sonship hold out as just around the corner, actually happens at the beginning of the Christian´s walk.66 The result is a stress on what the believer may become"”rather than instructing believers to be what they already are.
"œWe properly think of calling, regeneration, justification, and adoption as acts of God effected once for all," Murray says, "œand not requiring or
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 243
admitting of repetition. It is of their nature to be definitive. But, a consider able part of New Testament teaching places sanctification in this category." 67 He goes on to demonstrate that the apostle Paul teaches definitive sanctification in Romans 6 and throughout his writings where he refers to Christians as those who are already dead and resurrected with Christ; they are sanctified; they are saints. Murray points out that the apostle John teaches the same thing. There is from the beginning an enormous antithesis, a re-aligning, a reorientation in the life of the believer away from sin and towards righteousness. This emphasis is not present in Sonship´s teaching. Rather, it is undermined, by definition, in Sonship´s piety of revival. Revival has never been a term for steady or normal growth. Revival has never stressed becoming who you are in Christ. It is difficult to see how this aspect of Sonship might be remedied when revival is Sonship´s main goal. It must also be said that this teaching is existentially difficult for the believer. Sonship´s theology of ongoing revival offers a very restless bed-fellow for any steady assurance of faith. While the Psalms, for example, or chapter 18 of the Westminster Confession recognize that there can be times of despair or extreme difficulty in the life of the believer, neither recommends this road as the preferred mode of pilgrim travel. And this leads to the final concern that Sonship´s theology of revival raises.
As mentioned above, a World Harvest brochure promoting Sonship maintains that the program is normally effective, but not automatic. It needs the blessing of the Spirit. It states that the "œSpirit uses many means to kindle revival"¦ . World Harvest has found the above means, among others, to be effective to that end."68 There are other means however, more familiar to Presbyterians, that rely on the Spirit and point to Christ. They are found in another instructional program, the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Like Sonship, the Catechism emphasizes faith and repentance as the operating principles of the believer´s life. Answer 85 states, "œTo escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life""”but the Catechism goes on to say something else. The believer is required to use diligently "œall the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption." And what are these outward means? According to the Westminster Assembly, "œthe outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the Word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation."69
This is a significant lacuna in Miller´s proposal for fixing the church. The Presbyterian standards stress the word, sacraments and prayer"”things which are ordinary, which God uses in an ordinary way. Miller stresses the extraordinary, a course or a conference or a small group Bible study, and expects
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 244
unusual blessings, ordinarily.70 His model for grace is not public worship and ordinary means. He does not stress "œthe reading, but especially the preaching of the Word;" he stresses every-member-ministry. The sacraments are only twice mentioned in Sonship (and one of those times is a genial reference to private communion). 71Prayer is important, but corporate prayer is given no emphasis in Sonship; Miller´s stress instead is on private devotions, and small group prayers.72 One does not leave the course material with an impression that the workings and worship of the church on the Lord´s Day are paramount in importance. The corporate life of the church and the ordinary means of grace may be implicitly important, but they are not explicitly so. This should give Presbyterians some pause. And it may suggest an answer to the initial question of the essay.
IV. Conclusion
Would it be possible, after remedying its weaknesses, to use the Sonship program in a way that would prove beneficial to the life of Presbyterian congregations? The glossaries could be changed and the definitions reworked without too much difficulty. In theory the lectures could be altered and new speakers could replace old ones, but the materials still leave the impression that a good part of the appeal of Sonship is its original speakers and authors. The lectures could be supplemented by handouts and explanatory or corrective footnotes, and group leaders could be instructed to clarify ambiguities and correct errors. This would not be easy. The clutter provided by merging adoption into justification is pervasive in the material, as is the inadequate treatment of sanctification. Yet, even if Sonship were clarified in these areas it still could not remedy one fundamental problem, namely, its unqualified commitment to revivalism.
Sonship stresses "œongoing revival in the life of the believer, empowering one to obey the command to love God and love others, in a radical,
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 245
Jesus-kind-of-way, that amazes the lost, and draws them to Jesus."73 It is a revival ministry. It expects "œlives of abounding, overflowing faith "¦ leading to surprising obedience and achievement."74 Sonship´s efforts to establish the experience of revival in a church generally begin with reviving the pastor. Paul Miller explains: "œIt is difficult for a local church as a whole to be revived if the pastor himself is not experiencing ongoing revival"75"”a teaching hauntingly familiar with the preaching against the unconverted ministry by George Whitefield, the Tennents, and the Wesleys in the First Great Awakening, and Charles G. Finney´s in the Second Great Awakening. 76Testimonies of pastors being revived or converted abound in World Harvest´s material.77 In fact, not only pastors, but participants and teachers in the program do not always seem clear on whether they are being revived or converted. This confusion is not likely to help the Christian church.
This commitment to revival is also unhealthy since it stresses something which ignores, or at least undermines, the means which Christ ordained and commanded for the edification and blessing of his church. By establishing continuous surprising revival as the standard of piety for the church, Sonship not only causes the individual Christian to look for the extraordinary, but forces the corporate church to do the same.78 In the process Sonship establishes a tension with the outward and ordinary means whereby Christ blesses his church, as revival rarely cooperates with the ordinary.
WTJ 61:2 (Fall 1999) p. 246
This is manifested in the program´s assumption that the church adopt an every-member ministry philosophy rather than following Christ´s stipulation that the pastorate fulfill its Great Commission to preach and administer the sacraments.79
In the end, it would be better for churches to emphasize their dependence on the Spirit of God to make the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of convincing and converting sinners, and of building them up in holiness and comfort, through faith, unto salvation. It would be better to go back to the old method of stressing, or even belaboring, the importance of catechesis in families, the primacy of preaching on the Lord´s Day, corporate worship, and trusting that the sacraments will be effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them. If World Harvest offered a course which underscored these things it would be preferable to repairing the existing Sonship course and other new measures. The church would benefit if Presbyterians would be earnest in prayer, asking their God for extraordinary blessing on his ordinary means of grace rather than looking for the experience of ongoing personal revival. Sometimes less is more.
Westminster Theological Seminary. (1999;2002). Westminster Theological Journal Volume 61 (Vol. 61, Page 227-228). Westminster Theological Seminary.
[Edited on 12-31-2004 by webmaster]
turmeric
Megerator
Keswick for Presbyterians Preswick?
My pastor likes Sonship but hasn't a good word to say for Keswick - hope he reads this article, but actually there's a lot more wrong with Keswick than its emphasis on revival & crisis. One result of its influence in the evanjellyfish circles is that repentance and faith are seen as something you do to get in and then never re-visit. Justification is a one-time thing but its results are ongoing. I need to hear the Gospel every week, if not every day. I need to keep believing it - it does help in my sanctification. Having said that, "sanctification by faith" was a very unfortunate choice of words!!
Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the article, Webmaster!
My pastor likes Sonship but hasn't a good word to say for Keswick - hope he reads this article, but actually there's a lot more wrong with Keswick than its emphasis on revival & crisis. One result of its influence in the evanjellyfish circles is that repentance and faith are seen as something you do to get in and then never re-visit. Justification is a one-time thing but its results are ongoing. I need to hear the Gospel every week, if not every day. I need to keep believing it - it does help in my sanctification. Having said that, "sanctification by faith" was a very unfortunate choice of words!!
Just my rambling thoughts on the matter. Thanks for the article, Webmaster!
turmeric
Megerator
Yes, it appears that we don't have to worry about the threat of "Preswick". I've tried to take what's good from Sonship theology and "spit out the bones". They're right that due to our sinful propensities we keep "forgetting" to trust God, and that the Gospel, which tells us what God was willing to do for us, can break our rebellious independenc, over time, of course.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
