Thank you for your post and for highlighting the dangers of passive sanctification. I have been following your blog for quite some time now, and I appreciate your scholarship very much.

One of the things you have often cautioned your readers is the danger of overreaction (like in your Moses and Merit posts). As I read your above post repeatedly, I wondered whether you may have over-reacted yourself in this post. Here is my concern:

You wrote that “The Gospel is not justification” and then you approvingly quoted Dr. Evans who said, “The fact of the matter is that the heart of the gospel is not justification. Nor is it sanctification. It is Jesus Christ himself, who is “our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”

To say that Gospel is not justification, and that justification is not at the heart of the gospel, seems to me, to go against the grain of the Reformed tradition. Does not the Reformed tradition put a primacy on the doctrine of justification? Did not Luther say that justification is the article on which the church stands or falls? Did not Calvin say that justification is the hinge on which true religion turns?Even recent authors in our tradition affirm that justification is at the heart of the gospel — like James Buchanan (1; See below); Robert Reymond (2); Charles Leiter (3); and of course R. C. Sproul (4)

Now, I understand that the phrase “heart of the gospel” is quite subjective and different people can mean different things (some have said atonement is the heart of the gospel). However, as all these quotes below testify, the doctrine of justification by faith is the central tenet of the Christian Gospel according to our tradition. To deny that would be to go against much of what others have said in our tradition.

Moreover, to say that “heart of the gospel is neither justification nor sanctification but Jesus Christ himself” is to introduce a false dichotomy between the person and work of Christ. We cannot embrace Christ crucified — and as our sanctification — unless we first embrace him by faith for our justification (as implied by the word “righteousness” in 1 Cor 1:30). Even others outside our tradition, like Phil Johnson, have pointed this out: “Here, in Paul’s own words, is the heart of the true ambassador’s message. This is Paul’s own explanation of precisely what he meant when he spoke of preaching “Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” In other words, this is Paul’s most succinct summary of the heart of the gospel: “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Corinthians 5:21).” (http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/05/heart-of-gospel.html)

I fully understand your concerns about antinomianism and agree with your other points. But I was quite concerned about your last point for the above reasons.

(1) So that, when they found the Bible teaching that God’s relationship with man is regulated by His law, and only those whom His law does not condemn can enjoy fellowship with Him, they believed it. And when they found that the heart of the New Testament gospel is the doctrine of justification and forgiveness of sins, which shows sinners the way to get right with God’s law, they made this gospel the heart of their own message. (under the section, “Divine Authority of the Bible”)

(2) The doctrine of justification is the heart and core of the Gospel… (page 761; New Systematic Theology)

(3) Two great miracles stand at the very heart and center of the gospel. The first miracle is justification… (Page 13; Justification and Regeneration)

(4) http://www.ligonier.org/blog/what-is-the-gospel/

POSTED BY DR. ROD ROSENBLADT
“In the last week of February, 2012, Dr. Rod Rosenbladt delivered an address at the Liberate conference held at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, focused on Gerhard Førde and Sanctification. This outline is the free one he has made available through that event and is now available here.

DOWNLOAD Førde and Sanctification, the Lutheran View PDF”

Wow, that’s very interesting, informative, and also unfortunate.

Thank you for the brief history of this teaching.

Kind regards in Christ,

Thank you for these thoughtful posts.

My only question to you would be: who are some of the notable and influential teachers that are leaning toward and/or teaching forms of passive sanctification?

I know there are many who have raised concern with Tullian Tchividjian’s “no law” teachings. But are there any others, that you’re comfortable mentioning, that we should take note of?