Bnonn Tennant, Justification by Works, and the Culture War

On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. (John Calvin)

First Things

Correct doctrine and correct ethics go hand in hand. I do not scorn or condemn Christians engaged in the public sphere correcting and even rebuking the culture's sins. I, and this website, do plenty of that ourselves. 

Though cultural matters are significant, we cannot ever lose sight of who we are. We are the Church of the Trinitarian living God. We worship the crucified and risen Jesus, who is both our God and our King. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone. These are the first things. 

There is conflict in our culture. We rage at one another because of nuances on gender or politics, and yes, sometimes these views warrant rebuke and even harshness. But no matter which side of this "culture war" you come down on, we must keep first things first. If the Church of the living God is ever to take authentic spiritual dominion and positively affect this world, it will be done by the power of the true Gospel. We do not hold up first things in spite of building the Kingdom of God, but because first things are how we build the Kingdom of God. 

Not long ago, I came across a significant example of a ministry that has made alarming compromises regarding these first things. It's Good to Be a Man (IGTBAM) is a blog, podcast, and now a book focusing on what they call "gendered piety." In short, they are a ministry focusing on teaching and defending their form of patriarchalism. For full disclosure, although I'd agree with IGTBAM on the historical and confessional positions regarding male headship and male ecclesiastical eldership, I would strongly disagree with how "all of that" practically works out. They hold views regarding gender that I, frankly, find extra-Biblical and sometimes even dangerous. However, what troubles me more is that Bnonn Tennant, co-founder of IGTBAM alongside CREC pastor Michael Foster, has been excommunicated by a Reformed congregation for a heretical position on justification (as well as other charges related to both his character and his "gendered" views).

I'm not the sort to throw around the "heresy" label. I take that accusation very seriously. I understand that different people and different traditions define heresy in different ways. My understanding is that heresy is damnable or at least normatively damnable. I cling to the reality that our doctrinal knowledge does not save us, but I still believe that scripture plainly teaches that certain ideas must be genuinely accepted to be saved. 

For example, we must not reject the deity of Christ, the resurrection of Jesus, and the Holy Trinity. Further, we must not reject justification by faith alone. A core pillar of orthodox Christianity is that justification is through Jesus Christ alone, apart from our works, and that it is by faith alone through grace alone. 

Through the social media grapevine, I heard that Bnonn was excommunicated and had some "odd" views about justification, but I hadn't investigated further until recently. When a friend sent me Bnonn's "side of the story," I decided to dive into Bnonn's lengthy and detailed defense. I have had my run-ins with illegitimate ecclesiastical censors, so I came to the discussion with a certain amount of sympathy. Though I'm on the other side of much of what Bnonn teaches on gender and culture, I'm also someone who knows what it's like to be severely misunderstood and abused by a church body. Even now, I am unsure if Bnonn's former elders and church performed their church discipline duties properly. Some of Bnonn's complaints about due process and procedure may be legitimate. However, the vast majority of what's publicly available to examine is Bnonn's perspective, so I can't justifiably speak to what happened procedurally. Appropriately, his local church did not blog about the church discipline proceedings. 

However, as I read Bnonn's defense against his excommunication, his own words were more than enough to convince me that there are serious doctrinal problems. Just as I can't speak to his former church's procedural duties, I also can't speak to his character in the same way that his local church can. Regarding doctrine, though, Bnonn has gone to great lengths to let his views be known. I was, frankly, expecting some version of Piper's confused (albeit not heretical in my opinion) view on justification, but what I found was much worse. 

I also need to state that I completely understand how my public opposition to their version of patriarchalism could tint how some read this article. But I would ask all to read not only my essay, but also Bnonn. His words do far more damage to his cause than mine ever will.

I also want to note that, however you feel about Bnonn's views on justification, that does not make his views on "gendered piety" any more or less true. Though I do believe there's a connection between how some in the patriachal camp view the Gospel and their views on gender, IGTBAM’s form of patriarchy does not stand or fall based on Bnonn’s view of the Gospel.

Bnonn's Justification by Works

In short, Bnonn publicly teaches that we are justified before God by both faith and works. 

I want to be as clear and as fair as I can. I recommend readers read (at least) this article from Bnonn. I will quote from this article and at least one other from Bnonn, but he has other articles that say much of the same thing. I am not hiding his work away or hoping my readers won't "fact-check" me. I am encouraging believers to go to the horse's mouth.  

Here are a few preliminary points. 

  • Bnonn is not alluding to a form of social justification in which we are justified in the eyes of those who observe us.

  • Bnonn is not alluding to the work of Christ dying on the Cross.

  • Bnonn is not alluding to the necessity of works as evidence of our salvation.

  • Bnonn is alluding to his own (or our own) good works.

  • Bnonn is alluding to being justified before God.

  • Bnonn is alluding to works being a direct mechanism that justifies.

To quote Bnonn, he writes in his defense that "a man is justified by (some) works." 

Bnonn, when speaking of justification, is specifically speaking in the context of soteriology, and the works he's referring to are explicitly our works, not solely the work of Christ on the Cross. 

Further, he writes elsewhere that "Works are part of diachronic faith, which is why James can even say that they justify (James 2:21). They are the instrument of our justification because faith is the instrument of our justification, and they are a part of faith."

At this point, it would be good to understand that in Bnonn's defense against his excommunication, he rightly points out that works play a role in salvation. 

Salvation & Justification

Works play a role in our salvation in that works are necessary for salvation. Sanctification is a part of the "ordo salutis," and Bnonn points out the Reformed heritage of acknowledging the necessity for good works in salvation. Works do not contribute to our salvation, but they are necessary. This nuanced point is all good and acceptable and well within Reformed bounds. In fact, I'd even say it's a helpful reminder for us to recognize that works are essential, and when works are emphasized, it should not always lead to warning bells or accusations of legalism or works-righteousness. We do not fight legalism with antinomianism. 

However, Bnonn is not merely talking about the whole of salvation; he's teaching that justification includes our works. He leans heavily on this accepted doctrinal point that salvation includes works but then pivots and applies works to justification in particular. This switch from speaking of salvation in general to justification, in particular, is carefully made, and he notes clearly the distinction. He knows what he is doing.

Redefining Faith

Regarding Bnonn's understanding of faith, he employs the common Federal Vision bait-and-switch tactic. He claims to affirm justification by faith alone while adding our works to his understanding of faith. To be fair to Bnonn, he's not attempting to be coy about this redefinition. While some Federal Vision authors are squeamish about being clear about their definition of faith, Bnonn is very forthright, and I appreciate that about him. This forthrightness, however, does not help his case. I'll also note that I'm uncertain if Bnonn could technically be considered Federal Vision. Still, he has some overlapping beliefs with that camp, which happen to be the worst of Federal Vision. 

Bnonn, above, writes that "They [Works] are the instrument of our justification because faith is the instrument of our justification, and they [works] are a part of faith."

In the same article, he has an entire section dedicated to proving what he calls the "Worky Nature of Faith." 

Bnonn, many times, clearly argues for a definition of soteriological saving faith that includes our works. 

In contrast, The Protestant understanding of faith is defined in three parts; notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

  • Notitia, or knowledge, directs us to the object of our faith, namely, Jesus Christ. We must have cognitive knowledge of Jesus. Simply identifying who our object of faith is vital.

  • Assensus, or assent/acceptance, moves beyond just identifying and knowing things about our object of faith and believing in our object of faith and his teachings. Not only must we affirm knowledge (notitia) of Jesus, but we must also accept the truth of Jesus and his words. 

  • Finally, fiducia, or confidence, moves beyond knowing and believing and teaches that we must trust in Christ to save us. As scripture teaches, even demons believe the truths of God (James 2:19), but they do not trust nor abide in Christ for salvation. 

Adding works to this formula fundamentally changes the very nature of faith. This change in the meaning of faith is the same error of the Roman Catholic church in mixing faith with works. While the Roman church is more direct with this error, adding our works to the definition of faith ends in the same result; justification by faith and works. 

Further, this redefinition of faith makes nonsense out of Scripture’s plain teaching that seperates faith and works.

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28)

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Bnonn almost flaunts his affirmation of justification by faith alone as if the label itself proves his orthodoxy and not the historical, confessional, and Biblical understanding of what faith actually means. Though I want to be charitable towards Bnonn, this obfuscation is essentially the same rhetorical tactic of many pseudo-Christian cults that employ orthodox terminology but with their own novel definitions of the terms.

Works Righteousness by a Different Name

Bnonn, throughout his teachings on the topic, denies works righteousness again and again. Yet I cannot fathom how repeating blatant affirmations of justification by works is not an affirmation of works righteousness. What is justification if it's not being made righteous before the eyes of the almighty living God? If justification includes works, and works are, as Bnonn teaches, the instrument by which we are justified, how is that not works righteousness? As John Calvin teaches on the subject, 

A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness.

This works righteousness equivocation is made clear in this section of Tennant's teaching. 

Final justification does not add anything to the conditions of justification; nor does it entail that God grounds his verdict in our works rather than in his Son's. On the contrary, final justification is on account of the very same faith that first joined us to Jesus and his vindication—and our works are a proper part of that faith.

In short, this is a "have my cake and eat it too" defense strategy.

Basic orthodoxy cannot be maintained by simply asserting that you're not teaching works righteousness while everything you're teaching besides the denial is, by definition, works righteousness. No matter how often you remind readers that only Christ is the grounds for our justification, when you also say that works are the mechanism by which we are justified, it just doesn't add up. You cannot write multiple articles explaining and defending, in detail, a works righteousness view of justification to then dismiss charges of heresy by tacking on a denial of works righteousness. 

Though Bnonn is very clear about his rejection of the Protestant view of faith, it is simply dishonest to maintain a position of justification by faith alone when you define the meaning of faith to include works. To be upfront, Bnonn should affirm a view of justification by faith and works, which is decidedly not the same thing as faith apart from works as the Apostle Paul and the Protestant faith affirms. 

Reformed Pedigree

In multiple articles, Bnonn attempts to use quotations from Reformed theologians to show that his faith+works position has a "Reformed Pedigree." I will show two examples of how this doesn't do him any favors. 

One example is in his quoting of AA Hodge. Hodge writes, 

They [good works] are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer's progress meriting the divine favor, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification.

Bnonn follows this passage with, "Any Reformed thinker—any Christian at all—would agree that in fact you do need to do something to remain justified: namely, you must continue exercising faith." 

Yet note that Hodge explicitly says that he is not speaking of justification but rather salvation, yet Bnonn's commentary on Hodge would suggest that Hodge is talking about justification. 

Bnonn also quotes Turretin.

Good works are required as the means and way for possessing salvation … Although works may be said to contribute nothing to the acquisition of salvation, still they should be considered necessary to the obtainment of it so that no one can be saved without them … Although God by his special grace wishes these duties of man to be his blessings (which he carries out in them), still the believer does not cease to be bound to observe it, if he wishes to be a partaker of the blessings of the covenant … For since good works have the relation of the means to the end (Jn. 3:5, 16; Mt. 5:8); of the way to the goal (Eph. 2:10; Phil 3:14); of the sowing to the harvest (Gal. 6:7,8); of the firstfruits to the mass (Rom. 8:23); of labor to the reward (Mt. 20:1); of the contest to the crown (2 Tim. 2:5; 4:8), everyone sees that there is the highest and an indispensable necessity of good works for obtaining glory. It is so great that it cannot be reached without them (Heb. 12:14; Rev. 21:27).

In this case, Bnonn leans on Turretin to show that faith includes our works; note that Turretin does not say this. Rather, much like Hodge, Turretin is laying out the standard Protestant and Reformed position that works are essential for salvation. 

The others Bnonn quotes are much like this. These Reformed scholars and pastors are writing against an antinomian view of cheap grace and are positing the standard view that works are essential in our salvation and that the type of faith that does not result in works is a dead faith.

No one he quotes does as Bnonn does. No one he quotes adds works to faith, and no one in his "Reformed Pedigree" teaches that we are justified by both works and faith. 

Bnonn's attempt to vindicate himself instead condemns him. Though he attempts to enlist these Reformed men in his fight, they are not on his side. 

The sole exception is in the quoting of CREC pastor Rich Lusk. Though Lusk does not go nearly as far as Bnonn, his quote is still concerning. Rich Lusk also happens to be a signer of the Joint Federal Vision Statement and who happens to openly reject the OPC’s report on justification. Bnonn, in his book The Spine of Scripture, favorably quotes Lusk’s rebuttal of the OPC. This does not help Bnonn or his position.

Conclusion and Admonition 

When looking over these ideas, it's crucial to understand that the words I quoted from Bnonn were not just "mistakes." He has written thousands of words explaining and defending his view that works justify us before God. This error is not an innocuous blunder wherein Bnonn mixes up some terminology but rather an error that has been carefully made. It is not that Bnonn has been negligent in explaining well enough. Quite the opposite, he has explained a great deal and has been perfectly clear. 

On these grounds, and in respect to the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ given to the local churches involved in the excommunication, I maintain that Bnonn Tennant is a heretic and is publicly teaching heresy. He should be marked out and avoided as a divisive false teacher.

Suppose Bnonn is a hero of Biblical masculinity. In that case, lest we place usefulness in cultural fights above fundamentals of the faith, we should show love to Bnonn and not affirm the orthodoxy of his faith. Suppose we disagree with Bnonn on various secondary matters. In that case, we should still show love to him by not engaging with him as a brother, but as one who needs assurance that we are not justified by our works but rather only by the finished works of King Jesus alone. Be kind to him as Christ has been kind to us.

Brothers and sisters, our works will never be enough, and if we look to ourselves rather than Christ, we're doomed. Not only does this error damage our assurance and send people to hell, but it also steals glory from Christ. Because of that, it's heresy. 

When we look to ourselves instead of Christ, when we lean on our works, when we believe that what we do is what sustains us, this is a denial of the one and only Gospel that saves. 

Do not ever sacrifice the Gospel on the altar of a culture war, no matter what side you're on. 

But since a great part of mankind imagine a righteousness compounded of faith and works let us here show that there is so wide a difference between justification by faith and by works, that the establishment of the one necessarily overthrows the other. (John Calvin)

ArticleJohn Reasnorreasnor, justification, theology1 Comment