Thanks for pointing to this post, Justin. It’s been immensely popular, thanks in part to your pointing to it.
Hope all is well…enjoyed your Facebook article.

Sad to see a guy mock everything except his understanding of the doctrines of Grace. As if all churches outside of the reformed tradition preach a gospel that is laden with self-help and you can be a better person sermons.
While I agree that some churches and models have adapted the gospel to be more listener friendly which I disagree with, I don’t think the problem lies within the doctrine of free-will.
There are plenty of churches who would disagree with Jonathan’s theology of 100% irresistable grace, not of your choosing but of God’s electing…and yet they are not serving up gospel-lite every Sunday. I think his generalization and assumption that his tradition has the only gospel aloud is prideful and boastful at best.
I don’t preach a false gospel, but I don’t agree with all of the reformed theology. What shall be done with a guy like me?

Hi Tony,
Unfortunately, you really read me wrong. Perhaps you haven’t read much of my writing?
The post was in no way meant to be a mockery of others nor a diatribe on Reformed theology. In fact, I never even mention Reformed theology but simply try to explore the implications of a bad doctrine of sin and grace upon our ecclesiology. My primary point is that a weak gospel is inclined to produce weak models of church, to attract people with the wrong things.
You are correct, semi-pelagian understandings of the gospel don’t always lead to bad church methods. Perhaps I overstated my case, but exceptions also don’t disprove the rule.
If free will in salvation and will power in sanctification are the theological roots of the gospel, wouldn’t theological-practical consistency will lead us to emphasize will-driven forms of church? Help me think this through, brother.
BTW, I didn’t state my tradition or that my view of the gospel is the only way. What I am calling for his hearty, irenic debate what the gospel is and how it impacts our ecclesiology. I hope you’ll continue the conversation and appreciate your taking the time to respond.

Jonathan,
I realize you didn’t state in certain terms your affinity for Reformed Doctrine, but it came out here…”This gospel unabashedly undermines the doctrine of original sin and total depravity.” Plus reformed guys only use the term semi-Pelagian; which is a gross mis-characterization in my humble opinion. By the way I have no issues with those who espouse reformed theology, but my concern is always the way in which it is presented, as well as the way in which I find many reformed guys/gals ripping everyone else. My apologies for the over-statement on my side as well, maybe you don’t realize how these statement come across.
“As a result, the Church becomes a half-way house between our moral failures and our moral successes”
“If we are not truly sinners and need just the divine assistance of a kindly Christ, then the gospel is reduced to moral rehabilitation and spiritual highs.”
You may not consider this mockery, but it sounds that way to me. I realize this is how you think of the brand of theology or most of them outside of a reformed take, but it doesn’t lead guys like me to believe our voice is honestly desired in the conversation or dialogue. It leads me to believe you have your mind made up. Anything outside of your brand of gospel is less than gospel! I don’t see it that way.
So to the conversation of thinking this through, I would seriously like to engage, but I think we have to agree on a few things. I don’t nor do most people I know outside of the reformed traditions believe that sanctification is a product of my “will-power” as you put it!
The gospel is the work of God to restore all who will back to union with God and communion with others in a community, for the good of others and the world. I believe the gospel is in stages. If you stop with the gospel is Jesus died for me and my sins and those of the elect so I can go to heaven and be with Him forever, your gospel is short of the 100% your looking for. There is no doubt how you define the gospel WILL effect your ecclesiology; and if the way anyone does church doesn’t include how the work of God and the restoration of all things in Christ must move beyond the heavenly realm into effecting others and the world, then maybe the gospel isn’t 100% after all!
Peace
Tony

Tony,
Thanks for continuing the dialog. I can see how those phrases could be interpreted as a rant against Pelagian theology; however, the second two quotes came from my follow-up post which focus on a gospel that is 50% grace and 50% behavior (not semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism, Open theism, or whatever). I am not leveling this critique at any theological camp per se, but at churches that preach a gospel that softens the doctrines of sin and grace through a radical emphasis on “application” and behavior change. A lot of churches call people to change without the power of gospel. This reduces sermons and discipleship to legalism or moralism, not Christ-treasuring, Spirit-empowered faith. When application is the centerpiece of our churches, i.e. How Jesus Can Make you a Better Parent, Spouse, Etc, we lose our gospel moorings. As a result, we market and make churches around self-made reform, personal change, not the adoration of God in Christ thru the Spirit. We fail to connect hearts to Christ in a overemphasis on connecting our behaviors to the Bible. This is what I mean by sanctification by will power. No, most people would not declare it so, but if we downsize our gospel then what are we left with?
So, I don’t have an axe to grind against semi-pelagianism or whatever (that is done by Horton), I do believe that forms of the gospel that seek to preserve human will and action as part of the gospel instead of a response to teh gospel are defective. Thus, I would disagree with your definition of the gospel which is clearly will-preserving and neglects Christ (the latter I’m sure just and oversight):
“The gospel is the work of God to restore all who will back to union with God and communion with others in a community, for the good of others and the world.”
However, I do agree with your holistic description of the gospel as changing the whole world. The Bible clearly presents such a gospel—Gospel of Kingdom, Gospel of New Creation, Gospel of the Mystery, as well as the more person/community-focused elements of Justification, Adoption, Reconciliation, Regeneration, etc.
Question: If we preserve the primacy of the will in salvation, what keeps us from not prioritizing the will in sanctification? If the will is so important and good, then why then do we need grace to believe and live it?
Rejoicing in Jesus with you this Xmas,
JD

JD,
There is no doubt preaching anything outside of the power of Christ is silly and moralism that will be powerless when tested…I guess I just don’t believe there are many people really saying you can do this outside of a relationship with Christ and outside of His power and grace…but no need to debate what people are not and are saying. I think the dialogue assumes much and I’m not a fan! I know that when I listen, hear, or see churches teaching things about application..there is and always has been a HUGE if not single emphasis on the power of God to make this happen. And I believe much of the words of Christ and the rest of the NT is as much application as it is Doctrine. So I long for a place that puts equal weight on the two. The doctrines of the faith as well as how these basics of our faith turn the application of morality and goodness in our world in a God way!
I’m unsure of your disagreement with my definition. Exactly how is “human will and action as part of the gospel instead of a response to the gospel” as you put it different.
Human will being a response to the gospel then becomes a part of it. The gospel is the work of God first and foremost, but God has been and still does use human hands to accomplish a lot!!! And last I checked he was not moving my hands and feet as if I was His newest Christmas toy! He speaks, He prompts, He burdens and I have a choice. Respond or ignore!
Lastly, I never said my nor any human will was good in nature. It was good in creation and purpose, but twisted by sin. So this is why grace is needed to perfect sanctification. The will starts nor does it perform salvation nor sanctification…but I believe it is a component!
Peace
Tony
Peace
Tony

Thanks for the exchange, Tony. I appreciate your thoughts. Every blessing in your ministry.