Kevin DeYoung: What We All Agree On, and What We (Probably) Don’t, In this Sanctification Debate

1815 reads

There are 4 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture


I'd very much like to see what Kevin describes here...

Whether it’s a public debate or not, we as fellow evangelicals, often fellow Reformed pastors, and sometimes fellow friends, should be willing to provide further clarity and answer some probing questions from both sides of this scuffle over sanctification. And we should do at least some of this publicly, because this has been a public discussion entered into willingly by “public figures” on all sides.

josh p's picture

Yeah I would like to see something like that to. Some of the language that TT uses seems so non-descript. I would like to see him called to define his views in that venue.

dmyers's picture

I'd like to see the debate, too.  Among other benefits, perhaps a good-faith debate would persuade more that many critiques of Tchividjian et al. are straw men.  Prime example is the Jen Wilkin blog post that started the most recent exchange, accusing Tchividjian et al. of "celebratory failurism."  That's the kind of put-words-in-their-mouth spin that we have to put up with from the Obama administration on a daily basis.  It wasn't even close to a fair characterization of Tchividjian's position.  Yet DeYoung and the others he cites were quick to defend Wilkin when TT responded, and few (if any) chided her for her inflammatory and unfair spin.  Mark Jones at Reformation21 even mocked TT for taking issue with a "homemaker theologian," ignoring the fact that it was the homemaker theologian who started it -- with a post on TGC's website, not her own blog.

And now, interestingly, TGC has asked TT to remove his content from their website, without a public (or private) explanation.

Aaron Blumer's picture


TT has not managed to be very clear on the subject. Contrast The Hole in Our Holiness, which not only upholds the traditional Reformed view of sanctification but also adds considerable clarity to it. If TT is not promoting passivity, "failurism," "nomophobia," etc., it would be nice to get a systematic and complete explanation from him as to what in the world he is teaching.

Perhaps in the end it's just a problem of reaction and overstatement on his part. But what exactly is he reacting to? I know this much: in our age, the last thing western Christians in general need to hear is that they should be less disciplined--or, to put it more historic terms--make less use of law.