Considering the Naked Gospel Part 4

The 4th part of The Naked Gospel by Andrew Farley is called Burning Matryoshkas, but the basic content is about justification and regeneration.  In this section Farley displays another aspect of a hyper-dispensationalist  method of interpretation- literalism.  The result is some profound distortions of the doctrines of justification and regeneration, and their effect on sanctification.

Properly understood, a literal method should take figures of speech, metaphor, genre and more into account to proper understand the author’s intention.  Literalism often ignores these literary tools, thereby distorting the author’s intention.

He attacks the view that our justification is positional.  He never really defines justification, but as he discusses it we find a fundamental rejection of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as the foundation of our justification.

“God’s plan was actually an exchange of nature. … People who place their faith in Christ undergo a miraculous exchange at the center of their being.  Who they were in Adam is no longer there.  They become a new person, a child of God who is in Christ.  The key event causing this exchange is a death, burial and resurrection with Christ.  This miraculous exchange is not figurative or symbolic but literal and actual.  The spiritual part of every Christian has literally and actually been crucified, buried, and raised with Christ.”

In Paul’s writings we find the concept of being “in Christ”.  We enjoy a spiritual union with Him.  Since he is our representative, instead of Adam, all that happened to Him happened to us.  When Jesus literally died and rose again, He did it as our Substitute so we receive the benefits of His actions.  In Romans 4, one of the key phrases Paul quotes from Genesis is that Abraham’s faith was “credited to him as righteousness.”  Justification is the removal of our guilt (imputed to Christ at His death) and the imputation of His obedience to us.  Though we are not personally righteous, His righteousness is credited to all who believe.  Luther would say we are “at the same time just and sinners.”

“We find it difficult to grasp the idea that God calls us righteous because we actually are righteous. … But we’ve been perfectly cleansed.  And we’ve been made perfectly righteous at our core through spiritual surgery.  This is the only reason we can enjoy even a moment of relationship with Jesus Christ.”

So Farley essentially holds to a view of justification that is about infusion (instantaneously, unlike the Roman Catholic view) rather than imputation.  He is conflating justification and regeneration.  As a result, he distorts both justification and regeneration (and sanctification).

“I believe that Romans 6, for example, should be read in the same way we read the rest of the epistle- in a literal sense.”

This would seem strange to Paul who says we were baptized, or identified with,  into His death.  Paul sees baptism as a sign, but Farley sees it as imparting a spiritual reality meaning my old man died, was buried and raised in my baptism.  Not that I partake of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection but that I really died, was buried and raised.  Later on he will make a big deal about the phrase “count or consider yourselves dead to sin”(6:11).  This is the same verb found in Romans 4 regarding Abraham’s faith considered as righteousness.  In Romans 4 it is in the past, here in the present.

He wants us to know that it is not we who sin- we are no longer sinners but have a completely new nature.  The flesh is merely a spiritual parasite.  But if you want to be literal with Paul, he literally says “I no longer live, but Christ lives in me.”  So, am I alive or dead?  I’m confused.

Farley argues that we are perfectly good and righteous (not positionally, actually).  We continue to struggle because of the power of sin and the flesh.  We fail to live out our new identity because we don’t understand how free we really are.  The flesh uses the Law to promote sin, and has many a wrong desire.  But the flesh isn’t me, I’m not a sinner (so much for Paul calling himself the “greatest sinner” in the present tense, 1 Timothy 1:15).   He ends up taking Romans 7:14ff as pre-conversion, even though there is a shift in from past tense to present tense at that point.  This is used to say Christians shouldn’t struggle with sin.  As before, the Law has nothing to do with sanctification, and neither to we.  He quotes Philippians 1:6, but forgets to hold it in balance with Philippians 2:12-13.

6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. … 12 Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,  13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose. (NIV)

His passivism finds no place in Philippians 2.  Paul continues to  ground our activity in grace- for God works in me so I will will and work.  He sounds much like a hyper-Calvinist here (yes, a plethora of errors).  He views sanctification as monergistic rather than synergistic.

“We must realize that saying no to sin is not saying no to ourselves.  As God’s workmanship, our regenerated selves are not the problem.  Sin is the problem, and our calling as new creations in Christ is to say no to sin and to say yes to who we truly are.”

Sounds great, but aren’t we to “purify ourselves” as John says all who have this hope do (1 John 3:3)?  What we find is that this is the proverbial “tar baby”.  As a Reformed Christian, I understand that all doctrines are connected to one another in the gospel.  You can’t mess with one without messing up others.  It snowballs on you.  The snowball effect here makes this book a frustrating read.  Every time I turn a page it seems like I’m encountering another problem.

I understand that Andrew Farley is frustrated by much of what passes for Christianity in America today.  I am too.  But rather than embrace a tried and true theological heritage, he descends into obscure and distorted/distorting views.

Andrew Farley would do himself (and us) a great big favor by reading Piper’s book Finally Alive! and Thomas Boston’s Human Nature in its Four-fold State to understand the true nature of regeneration.  He’d find that our regeneration is indeed total, in this sense: every aspect of our being has been changed.  It is imperfect in this life.  It is not just our bodies that will be glorified, but we will finally be like Him (though we’re becoming like Him) only when we see Him face to face (1 John 3:2).