Most books on sanctification are full of mistakes and nonsense. They are characteristically sloppy, imprecise, unbiblical, mystical, and anti-intellectual. Let us consider some examples from one of the better works, Joel Beeke’s Overcoming the World.[1] Some of them might seem trivial, but they are not, because they reinforce common errors that severely distort the understanding and development of Christian readers.

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 and emphasis. Beeke probably wishes to universalize and legitimize his own experience, negativity, and unbelief. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Gain in the spirit comes from faith, hope, love, knowledge, cooperation, grace, mercy, holiness, victory, and many other wonderful things. Instead, Beeke stresses pain. This is what he thinks of the Christian faith, and of Jesus Christ. He also applies this to interpersonal relations. So this is what he thinks about his wife, his children, and his friends.

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. It is a sign of unfaithfulness and incompetence to offer non-Christian slogans as Christian teaching. Why should I learn non-Christian lessons from a Christian book? What a deceiver. What a disgrace.

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)

The first sentence contrasts the “heart” with the “mind,” and the second contrasts the “heart” with the “head.” Thus like many others, for Beeke the “head” refers to the “mind” – but then what is the “heart”? If the “heart” is not the mind, then it must be non-mental. If it is non-mental, then Beeke urges a non-mental emphasis on piety. What is a non-mental piety? And how can non-mental piety interact with Scripture?

If the heart and the mind are both mental, then how can we speak of them as if they are different parts of a human being? Where is the biblical justification for making this distinction between the heart and the mind? Also, why is the “mind” referred to as the “head”? Is Beeke a naturalist or evolutionist? The Christian view is that the mind is incorporeal, so that a man continues to exist and think even after his soul leaves the body at death.

The Bible never considers the mind and the heart as separate parts of a person. The above is an example of using unbiblical language to make an unbiblical distinction, and then impose it by force upon Christian theology and experience. Many of the anti-intellectual teachings on sanctification are founded on this distinction. We must condemn and discard this false doctrine.

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.”[2]

In the sacraments God accommodates 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)

The Bible does not teach this. Beeke made it up. It is unlikely that a person who doubts God’s word like this would really come to believe God’s promises through the sacraments. Moreover, one can doubt the sacraments and whether they apply to him just as easily as he doubts the word. In fact, he could more easily doubt the sacraments, since the sacraments do not use words to tell him that he is included.

The rich man wanted to be raised from the dead to warn his brothers, but Abraham said that if they would not hear God’s word, then they would not hear one who is raised from the dead. So if a man who comes back from the dead could not make a person believe, how can the sacraments do this? Whether one believes depends on the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit works with the word. And if one has any faith in the sacraments, it is only because he believes God’s word about them.

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)

There is no biblical evidence for this. Also, what kind of Christians get Christ better through the sacraments than God’s word? If they are Christians at all, they must be very bad Christians. Bruce is saying that sometimes Christians would rather deal with mere symbols of Christ than the very words that come from this Christ. Beeke approves, and does not condemn such people. What kind of man would encourage such an evil doctrine?

Holiness and prayer have much in common…Both are learned by experience and through spiritual battles. (90)

This is the voice of a deceiver. No, holiness and prayer are learned through the word of God.[3]

Holy living influences and impresses as nothing else can; no argument can match it. (98)

This is a common error, and an expression of anti-intellectual spirituality. The word of God, or a biblical argument, is always greater than the holiness of man. Beeke again insults the word of God, as if he is determined to belittle it.

As Spurgeon wrote: “…All our libraries and studies are mere emptiness compared with our closets…” (126)

Now Spurgeon blasphemes God’s word as Beeke cites him with approval. If there are Bibles in “our libraries and studies,” then this is an attack against the Bible. He even calls God’s word “mere emptiness” in comparison to our prayers. And if he does not have Bibles in mind when he refers to “all our libraries and studies,” then is he even a Christian? It is sufficient to say that we must both study and pray without resorting to pious exaggerations. The truth is that if a person neglects the study of God’s word, it is his prayer closet that will become mere emptiness.

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 derived from non-Christian thinking. Our competence to address a matter comes from knowledge of God’s word and not from experience. Paul also speaks to idolaters, homosexuals, drunkards, thieves, women, slaves, Gentiles, and many other sorts of people. Beeke either believes that the apostle had been all of these things – including a drunk heathen lesbian slave woman – or he believes that the apostle was wrong in speaking to these people, and thus denies the inspiration of the Bible. Look up 2 Corinthians 1:3–7. It teaches something else. Paul shares God’s resources with the people, not insight from experience.

Remember, you are known more for your reactions than your actions (Prov. 16:32). (146)

This is a blatant abuse of Proverbs 16:32, and it sounds like something that comes from a secular leadership seminar or a self-help book. It is a non-Christian slogan, and it is ridiculous. Hitler is known more for his actions than his reactions. Serial murderers are known for their actions rather than their reactions.

[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 perversion of Mark 14:61, which is referring to something else. It is not mainly about how to handle criticisms.

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)

The advice seems to come from popular psychology. He must offer biblical support for this, and to reconcile it with the examples of the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord Jesus, who often attacked their critics. Otherwise, this becomes a criticism against them, and no one can do this without endangering his soul.

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 Jesus knew that he would be restored. Judas is a different matter. Christ was not surprised by his treachery, but he knew that Judas was a “devil from the beginning,” foreordained to betray the Lord, so that the Scripture could be fulfilled. By saying that Christ was betrayed even though he handpicked his disciples, there could be the implication – probably unintended – that he made a mistake, and so the statement could include an element of blasphemy.

Pray with your critic. If he visits you, always begin with prayer, and ask him to close in prayer. (152)

Where is the biblical support for this? Are there biblical examples from the prophets, the apostles, and the Lord? Did Jesus ask the Pharisees to pray with him, and then ask them to close in prayer? Or is this just more pious sounding advice that is in fact false and foolish?

The Lord delivered Job from his hard feelings toward his judgmental friends when he prayed for them. (152)

Where does the Bible say that Job had hard feelings toward his friends? And where does it say that God delivered Job from those feelings when he prayed? This is speculation. It is a deception, because a reader might think that he is receiving sound advice based on a biblical example when this is not the case.

[1] Joel Beeke, Overcoming the World (P & R Publishing, 2005).

[2] Gordon Clark, The Biblical Doctrines of Man (The Trinity Foundation), p. 87-88.

[3] See Vincent Cheung, Prayer and Revelation.