Joel Beeke on Sanctification
I am sorry to say this, but most books on sanctification (Christian living, holiness, prayer, etc.) are very poor, and full of unbiblical nonsense.
In an earlier blog entry, I wrote the following:
Christian books on sanctification are characteristically sloppy, imprecise, unbiblical, and often somewhat anti-intellectualistic and mystical….In general, my advice is that you should always read something on sanctification by a competent systematic theologian rather than one who is famous only for writing "devotional" literature.
Joel Beeke is one of the better writers on the subject, and it is more than just a coincidence that he is a professor of systematic theology.
Here I would like to recommend his recently published Overcoming the World (P & R).
The book is divided into four parts (twenty-one chapters):
Part 1: Overcoming the World by Faith
Part 2: Overcoming the World through Piety (Calvin’s Answer to Worldliness)
Part 3: Overcoming the World through Holiness
Part 4: Overcoming the World in the Ministry
The book is not at all technical, but it is nevertheless substantive, fairly comprehensive, and useful for review and instruction. It should be appropriate for all kinds of readers.
Nevertheless, the book has its problems. In what follows, I will list some of the false or questionable statements that I’ve found in the book. Some of them might seem trivial to you, but they are not trivial, since many of them reinforce common errors that distort the theological understanding and the spiritual growth of Christian readers.
Since I will be making a number of short quotes from the book, instead of indenting each quote, I will just color each quote in blue. Then, I will comment on each quote in black. Note that since I am listing more than a few quotes from the book, I can give only very brief comments for each.
Also, since I cannot give a detailed critique of each quote, I will try to be very generous in my comments. In some cases, I must simply state my disagreement or ask a relevant question, and then move on, but in almost all of the cases below, I have provided my own positions and arguments for those positions in my own books, listed in the recommended reading at the end.
Some of these errors are not dangerous (althought some are), but they are nevertheless listed here because it is best to be aware of all fallacious statements as you read, and make a conscious effort not to swallow them or be influenced by them.
— /// —
1. In spiritual life, in interpersonal relations, in all of our work, this principle holds true: the path to gain is through pain. (13)
This is an unbiblical generalization.
2. In their book In His Image, Paul Brand and Philip Yancey show how pain is a necessary ingredient to growth. That’s why we speak of growing pains and repeat the saying "No pain, no gain." (13)
This is an unbiblical generalization, and it is never necessary and often counterproductive to use a non-biblical saying to teach a biblical truth. It is inappropriate to apply "No pain, no gain" to biblical sanctification.
3. Calvin’s piety is biblical, with an emphasis on the heart more than the mind. Head and heart must work together, but the heart is more important. (42)
Now this is the type of unbiblical nonsense that I am talking about.
Note that the first sentence contrasts the "heart" with the "mind," and the second contrasts the "heart" with the "head." Thus, as in the usage of many others, the "head" refers to the "mind" — but then, what in the world is the "heart"? If it is not the mind, then is it non-mental? If it is non-mental, then what is non-mental piety? And how can non-mental piety interact with Scripture?
But if they (the heart and the mind) are both mental, then why speak of them as if they are different parts of the human being?
Where is the biblical justification for making this distinction between the heart and the mind?
And why is the "mind" referred to as the "head" in the first place?
In Scripture, the "mind" and the "heart" are never considered as two separate parts of the human being. The above is an example of using unbiblical language to make an unbiblical distinction, and much of the anti-intellectualistic teachings on sanctification are founded precisely on this false distinction. We must throw out this teaching completely and permanently.
As Gordon Clark writes, "Therefore when someone in the pews hears the preacher contrasting the head and the heart, he will realize that the preacher either does not know or does not believe what the Bible says. That the gospel may be proclaimed in its purity and power, the churches should eliminate their Freudianism and other forms of contemporary psychology and return to God's Word…" (The Biblical Doctrines of Man; Trinity Foundation, p. 87–88).
4. In the sacraments God accomodates Himself to our weakness. When we hear the Word indiscriminately proclaimed, we may wonder: "Is it truly for me? Does it really reach me?" However, in the sacraments God reaches out and touches us individually, and says, "Yes, it’s for you. The promise extends to you." (56)
Really? Can a person who doubts the Word of God like this really come to a correct understanding of the promises of God through the sacraments? Where is this taught in Scripture? Can one not doubt the sacraments (or their applicability to him) just as easily as the Word, if not easier?
The rich man wanted to be raised from the dead to specifically warn his own brothers about damnation, but if they would not hear the Word, neither would they hear one who is raised from the dead. So, if having a dead relative raised from the dead for you doesn’t work to bring the promise home, then the sacraments will?
But if the thinking is that the Spirit works through the sacraments, then he can just as easily work through the Word.
5. While self-denial focuses on inward conformity to Christ, cross-bearing centers on outward Christlikeness. (69)
I am not saying that he is wrong, but I would like some biblical evidence for this distinction, which Beeke does not supply.
6. "Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God," wrote William Ames…. (77)
I disagree with this definition.
7. But as Robert Bruce put it, "While we do not get a better Christ in the sacraments than we do in the Word, there are times when we get Christ better." (88)
Really? What kind of Christians get Christ better through the sacraments than the Word? Also, where is the biblical support for this?
8. Holiness and prayer have much in common….Both are learned by experience and through spiritual battles. (90)
NO! They are learned through the Word of God.
(See my Prayer and Revelation)
9. These two things, fighting against sin and lack of success, appear contradictory but are not. (91)
No, these two things do not even appear contradictory, since there is nothing in either that even apparently makes the other impossible. "Fighting against sin" does not automatically guarantee or even imply success, and vice versa.
10. Holy living influences and impresses as nothing else can; no argument can match it. (98)
This is a common error, and another stubborn belief of anti-intellectualistic spirituality. It is unbiblical. A biblical argument (the very Word of God) can "match" holy living any day.
(See my The Light of Mind, chapter 2: "By Word and Deed")
11. (Referring to the church at Ephesus…) Her head was correct in doctrine, her hands were busy in service, but her heart had become cold in affection. (117)
Here is the unbiblical distinction between "head" and "heart" again. A biblical way to put this would be to say, "Her mind was correct in doctrine, her hands were busy in service, but her mind (this same mind that was correct in doctrine) had become cold in affection." It is also acceptable to use "heart" in both places where "mind" is used in this sentence.
12. As Spurgeon wrote: "…All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets…" (126)
This is Spurgeon, not Beeke, and Spurgeon is wrong.
Why are people compelled to put down intellectual studies when they discuss sanctification? It is unbiblical, and there is no reason for it.
And unless "all our libraries and studies" are completely without Bibles and Christian books, then what he says belittles the Bible itself, at least by implication.
It is more simple and accurate to just say, "You must both study and pray." Yes, put more fluff into it and make it sound nice and pious if you want, but don’t belittle either one to exalt the other.
And if you don’t study, your "closet" is going to be pretty empty.
(See my Prayer and Revelation)
13. Triumph is reflected in some of the Psalms, but nearly half of them describe the pain, sorrow, frustration, and loneliness of Christian experience…. As Luther said, "If you can’t find your life in the Psalms, you have never become a child of God." (129)
Tell that to someone who just got converted one minute ago. Yes, yes, I know what Luther meant, but it is technically incorrect, and it is an unnecessary mistake because he didn’t have to say it, at least not this way.
So I am not saying that all of these examples are examples of heresy — by no means — but many of them are unbiblical, or at least sloppy. And even if these are not enough to reject a book altogether, you should at least be aware of them as you read, and not let these fallacious statements sink into your mind, as if by osmosis.
14. Because [Paul] knew what anxiety was, he could teach believers how not to be anxious. Because he had personally battled fear and sin and disappointment, he could preach on those matters to other believers (2 Cor. 1:3–7). (129)
This is a common mistake patterned after secular thinking. The biblical thing to do is to base our qualifications on knowledge of the Word (and in Paul’s case, also on divine inspiration) rather than experience.
Look up 2 Cor. 1:3–7. It does not teach what is being asserted here. What is shared is God’s resources, not insight from experience.
15. Remember, you are known more for your reactions than your actions (Prov. 16:32). (146)
Really? How about serial murderers, or Hitler? Personally, I remember the actions of serial murderers rather than their reactions to anything, or Hitler’s actions rather than his reaction to anything. But maybe this is just me.
This seems to be a misapplication of Proverbs 16:32 (look it up!), and it sounds rather like something that comes from a secular leadership seminar or a self-help book. If it is really a biblical teaching, he will have to use another verse.
16. (When it comes to handling criticisms…) If your conscience is clear, a simple, straightforward explanation may be helpful in certain cases, though respectful silence is often more appropriate and effective (Mark 14:61). (147)
This is a misapplication of Mark 14:61, which has a specific and different context and background.
Look up the verse, and if needed, get some help from a reliable commentary. It is not mainly about how to handle criticisms, such as what you would receive because of your Christian ministry or witness.
17. At all costs, don’t strive to justify yourself; your friends don’t need that, and your enemies probably won’t believe you anyhow. (147)
Even if he is right, he needs to give some biblical support for this, and to reconcile it with how Jesus, Paul, and the prophets reacted to criticisms, since they did strike back in certain contexts.
Otherwise, I think that this is just another false generalization.
18. If one of Jesus’ handpicked apostles betrayed Him for a paltry sum, and another swore that he did not know Him out of fear of a servant maid, why should we expect to carry on our ministries without ever being betrayed or deserted? (149–150)
Peter might be applicable, but Judas at least needs some qualification or explanation. It was not as if Christ was surprised by his treachery; rather, he knew that Judas was a "devil from the beginning," foreordained to betray Christ, so that the Scriptures could be fulfilled.
19. Pray with your critic. If he visits you, always begin with prayer, and ask him to close in prayer… (152)
This type of suggestions sound pious enough, but I am not sure if they are always wise. Is there biblical support for this? Any biblical examples? In the life of Christ, Paul, Peter, others?
20. The Lord delivered Job from his hard feelings toward his judgmental friends when he prayed for them. (152)
Does Scripture say that Job had "hard feelings" toward his friends, and does it say that God delivered Job from those feelings when he prayed? If not, this is just pure speculation without any biblical justification. The danger is that the reader might think that he is receiving sound advice based on biblical examples when this is not the case at all.
— /// —
I will stop here, but there are many other examples that I can give.
Again, we do not have to throw out the book because of the above errors, and we do not have to regard Beeke as some moron or heretic. It is just that Christian books are almost always too sloppy and imprecise. Beeke’s book is already one of the best that I have read in this regard. Most of the other ones can go straight to the trash.
Except for the unbiblical distinction between "mind" and "heart," and the unbiblical identification of "mind" with "head," none of the above errors are extremely dangerous, but this is why I can say that it is already one of the best popular-level books that I’ve read on sanctification.
In any case, while I recommend this book, I also caution the reader not to learn by passive absorption, but to practice attentive reading and active thinking.
This way, not only will you be able to sift away its errors, but you will be able to advance in your spiritual growth even more than what the book itself can teach you.
You can order Joel Beeke’s Overcoming the World from Monergismbooks.com.
Recommended:
Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation
Vincent Cheung, The Light of Mind, ch. 2
Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrine of Man
Gordon Clark, Sanctification