“You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away….but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.” James 4:14, Hebrews 10:25

                                                                                         Link for The Truth About New Calvinism . com

Lou Priolo, Neo-Evangelicalism, and the Sonship Tsunami

Lou Priolo is an elder at Eastwood Presbyterian Church in Montgomery Alabama. Eastwood’s website, at one time, had a posted statement against Sonship Theology. The statement was pulled down and the church no longer retains a copy of it. I was told by a staffer that the former statement closely paralleled Terry Johnson’s treatise against the doctrine.

The well-known motto of the movement was, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”  The very slogan was coined by the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. This doctrine fundamentally drives 90% of all the biblical counseling in our day. In fact, David Powlison, the most notable and influential figure of the Christian Counseling & Education Foundation, has noted the primary fundamental difference between “first generation” biblical counseling and the second generation: Sonship’s assertion that the cross is for sanctification as much as it is for justification. According to Powlison, Dr. Miller was his “mentor.”

CCEF, through co-relationships and duplicity of board members, has effectively transformed the National Association of Nouthetic Counselors, formally what Powlison considered “first generation biblical counseling,” into a bastion for the same antinomian Sonship theology that drives CCEF. The stated goal of the upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition (which is controlled by CCEF and NANC cronies) is to network the entire Christian counseling community. “Infiltrate” is really the better word. Powlison, like all New Calvinists, thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new Reformation that is saving the church from the present dark age of synergistic sanctification.

Today, an article written by Priolo as a guest writer, entitled, “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself” was posted on the website for The Institute for Nouthetic Studies, the only biblical counseling organization left that has not been consumed by Sonship Theology. “On Preaching the Gospel to Yourself”? That’s like writing on the dangers of the pen-sized igniters used in nuclear missiles. But I will pause here to lay some groundwork for the thesis of this article.

In the 50’s and 60’s, well-known spiritual leaders begged the Christian community to repent of what was known as Neo-evangelicalism. In a nutshell, it rejected separation to maintain doctrinal purity. Neo-evangelicalism was spawned by Neo-orthodoxy which sought to find middle ground between Modernism (liberal theology) and Fundamentalism. The combination of these two movements (Neo-E./Neo-O.) has culminated into the massive ecumenical mentality of our day. The warnings were not heeded, and the church has all but completely given up its will to discern truth and protect it. Priolo, and his article posted on the INS site is a prime example of what these historical realities have given birth to.

Priolo is deeply involved in all three of the aforementioned counseling organizations (CCEF, NANC, BCC), and his article posted by INS is the epitome of Neo-orthodox fencepost theology. The article is clearly written to appease both second generation counselors and what’s left of the so-called first generation.  The post makes some brilliant points that would solidify a contention against the doctrine behind the article’s subject, but the Sonship nomenclature is conspicuously missing by design. Bottom line: to mess with the Sonship label is to mess with David Powlison and a host of others. It seems that Priolo wants to keep friends. Priolo’s article is like writing on the mantra, “I’m lovin’ it” without mentioning McDonalds.

Unfortunately, Priolo begins the article with a fundamental theological flaw and then contradicts himself in the latter parts of the article.

Flip

To my way of thinking, the place of the doctrine of justification in the believer’s life is much like the operating system on a computer…. Windows is always up and running, but most of the time, it runs in the background. I don’t see it…. Occasionally, I have to go to the control panel to troubleshoot a problem, make some minor adjustments, or defrag my hard drive, but I don’t give it another thought because I have faith that it is doing what it is supposed to do. So it is with my justification. It is always up and running. Though I am not always consciously thinking about it, everything I do flows from it. Indeed, I could do nothing without it [emphasis mine].

Stop right there. Everything flowing from justification is the crux of the issue. An ongoing work of justification (“running” in the background) is the other bookend of what makes Sonship Theology run on all cylinders. In the beginning of the article, he subscribes to the basic tenets of the doctrine he is supposedly refuting! In Present Truth Magazine, volume 16, article 3, The Australian Forum wrote the following in the article intitled, “Sanctiifcation—Its Mainspring”:

Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism, or Pharisaism.”

All in all, as we shall see, Priolo agrees with the basic tenet of Sonship Theology—he only disagrees with how often we need to apply it. This only seems to circumvent the contemplation aspect of the theology except on a as needed basis. To further this point, note what Priolo states next:

Flop

But there are many other things I am called to do (there are many other responsibilities God calls me to fulfill) on which I must diligently focus my attention. Although I am very grateful for it, I cannot allow myself to be distracted by checking the stability of my operating system of justification every five minutes.

This solidifies my point that at issue with Priolo is not the primary tenet of Sonship doctrine, but the frequency in which we check the “operating system of justification.” But that’s not orthodoxy which asserts that justification is a FINISHED work, and a legal declaration that results in the full righteousness of God being accredited to our account. A FINISHED work doesn’t continue to RUN.  In the first statement, Priolo wrote that “Indeed, I could do nothing without it [salvation/justification]” which is true in that we cannot have any sanctification without being saved first. But if words mean things, that’s not what he’s saying.

Flip

But what about the growing number of those who say that we must (or should or ought to) “preach the Gospel to ourselves every day?” If by Gospel they mean the entire ordo-salutis: effectual calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification—the whole enchilada—there is not a problem (other than the fact that the Bible doesn’t exactly command us to do this). But if, like so many seem to be espousing today, they take a reductionist view of the Gospel—reducing it to justification (or to adoption) alone—there is a problem.

This is a good point—though in our day one wonders if we should not look closer at the idea of  everything being “the Gospel” instead of making a distinction between the “ministry of the word” and the “ministry of reconciliation.” Priolo properly asserts here that even if that were true (preaching both sanct./just. to ourselves everyday), the Scriptures never tell us to do so. Well, amen to that!

Flop

If a new or immature believer does not yet have the faith to believe once and for all that God has truly justified him, he would do well to “preach the Gospel of justification to himself every day” until his faith is mature.

Not so. This is toeing the Sonship line and contradicts Peter’s specific remedy (2Peter, chapter 1) for what Priolo describes.

Flip

But to require me to “preach that gospel to myself daily” is to relegate me to the “O ye of little faith” society (which membership I would be only too happy to acknowledge if I thought it were true in regard to my justification). But the truth is that I believe God. I took Him at his Word when He said that He justified me. By and large, I walk around 24/7 with a righteousness consciousness that flows from my faith in Christ’s finished work on the cross. Even in the midst of my sin, I fully believe that I stand righteous and clean before my Lord (that I am still a son who is loved and accepted by my Heavenly Father) because I have been once and for all justified by faith in His blood. Indeed, my absolutely favorite Bible verse is Romans 4:8, “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not take into account.”

Again, this reiterates my point that Priolo’s argument seems to only deal with the frequency issue when he is not contradicting himself with orthodoxy

Flop

Consequently, I have little desire to spend precious moments every day laying anew a foundation that has already been laid for me. Nor do I think that the foundation on which I am building my life somehow needs daily reinforcement. My foundation is firm! I would rather (and I believe the bulk of Scripture directs me to) spend my time building upon that foundation by growing in love, in holiness, and in good works. (I don’t believe we should have a reductionist view of the concept of grace either—grace is more than unmerited favor—it is the supernatural ability and desire that God gives His adopted sons and daughters to obey Him.).

Amen! I agree wholeheartedly! But we have gone from a foundation to a computer program running in the background, and back to a foundation. Which is it?

Flip

And yes, of course, I realize that I can do none of this apart from the Spirit’s enabling power, and that my motivation for working so diligently on my sanctification is out of a heart filled with gratitude for what Christ has done by justifying me (not to mention thanksgiving for a myriad of other mercies with which He has blessed me).

And no, of course this is dead wrong, and right out of the Sonship/Gospel Sanctification/ New Calvinism/ NCT playbook. The Bible clearly states that God uses many other motivations to help us in sanctification; namely, threats, rewards, and many others.

Flop

This is not to say that there aren’t moments in my life when, because I am overwhelmed with the guilt of a particular sin, I have to take a bath in Psalm 32, 103, and Romans 3–5 for a few days in order to personally appropriate that justification which I forensically know is mine but that seems to have eluded me experientially. Nevertheless, these moments of weakness (concerning my faith) thankfully for me have been the rare exception rather than the rule.

Of course, there are many other exceptions that could be cited of people who may rightly be encouraged to take a daily booster shot of the Good News of justification. Perfectionistic people, for example, or legalistic individuals, or those who struggle with certain eating disorders are typically those who don’t comprehend justification and its implications on their lives and therefore would do well to review (indoctrinate themselves with) that part of the Gospel until they are fully assured that what God has promised He is able to perform.

Again, this is in blatant contradiction to 2Peter, chapter 1 which states that building on the foundation of justification makes our calling and election “sure.” We are to “make every effort” to “add” to our faith. Priolo erroneously teaches in this article that meditation on justification doctrine leads to assurance. No, we forget that we have been forgiven when we are not making every effort to add to the foundation of our faith.

Flip

So, this is certainly not to imply that there is something wrong with meditating on Christ and what He has done in regard to one’s justification. Indeed, such meditation serves as our greatest motivation for cooperating with the Holy Spirit in the progressive sanctification process. Thus, it is certainly a good thing to do. But, it is the insistence by some that we are all obligated to do this daily that has prompted me to speak out about what I believe amounts to an unbiblical approach to sanctification.

Once again, Priolo’s only objection to the hideous doctrine that he deliberately avoids mentioning is frequency. Whenever needed, not every day, while excluding any mention of what Scripture specifically prescribes.

Flop

Meditating on what Christ has done by justifying us is not, from the human perspective, what brings about our progressive sanctification (it is not the scriptural modus operandi for or the practical key to it). Obeying Christ’s commandments (in the power of the Spirit and from a heart that is properly motivated) is what does. Understanding justification (and being appreciative for it) is our primary motivation for sanctification, not a principal means of it.

So again, for those whose faith is weak (momentarily or chronically), or who do not understand or properly value the precious doctrine of justification by faith in Christ, or for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity. And for the rest of us, meditating on our justification and being thankful to God for it is a fine and proper thing to do.

This paragraph contains thoughts that are eerily similar to Sonship/GS/NC/NCT tenets:

…. for those who are so proud as to believe that they can obey the Bible in their own power, I believe they should by all means proclaim the doctrine of justification to themselves as often as necessary until their faith is strengthened or until they come to grips with their own depravity.

How would a Christian know (in the midst of “making every effort”) if his/her obedience is in their “own power” or that of the Spirit’s? It seems to leave an either/or ultimatum: either all us, or all of the Spirit. Sonship teaches that it is all of the Spirit. Priolo also seems to indicate that Christians should, “….come to grips with their own depravity.” The total depravity of the saints is a Sonship staple.

Flip

But for one Christian who struggles with (or is weak in) his faith to tell those of us who don’t that we are obligated to daily do what his lack of faith or knowledge (or perhaps lack of humility) impels him to do is presumptuous, if not legalistic. And for teachers and preachers of the Word who want to encourage others to meditate on the blessedness of being justified more regularly than perhaps they do in order to be properly motivated to obey God, for such teachers to not clearly delineate the biblical distinctions between justification and sanctification and thereby synchronize them in the minds of their hearers, is to put a stumbling block before those saints whom they are wanting to help walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. The Gospel is more—much more—than justification by faith alone.

Priolo is indicative of the huge problem that we have today with leaders who are in high demand. Their ambiguous teachings are designed to appease all venues or cover for what they really believe. They all contribute to the present-day  Sonship tsunami. Clearly, as the pastors who stood against Neo-evangelicalism exhorted, separation is the only answer. Until other leaders say, “enough is enough” and break fellowship with the likes of Priolo until he finds a true love for the truth, the tsunami will continue.

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 27; A “Scandalous” Question for Southwood Members

I’m also going to repost this under “Why I Talk to New Covenant Theologians.” In part 26, I raised the whole “scandalous gospel” motif propagated by New Calvinists and their doctrine’s evil twin, New Covenant Theology. Both came from the womb of Progressive Adventism (which by the way is a gut-check for the Presbyter: does that matter or not?). Part 26 was a question for the Session, now I have a question for the congregation which I will get to shortly.

The whole motif is designed to present the idea that there is a reason why so many evangelicals raise a stink about their doctrine: because it was also scandalous to the legal buffoons who contended against Christ and the apostles. This is what’s behind JL3’s present series, “Scandalous Obedience.” He wants to supposedly illustrate that he believes in obedience (wink, wink) while providing an answer for why Southwood is falling apart at the seams. In essence, because what he is teaching was also “scandalous” in the first century.

In regard to part 26, I received this email from a person who Ernest Reisinger (a former Presby turned SB. Van Til spoke at his ordination) referred to as one of the “forefathers of New Covenant Theology”:

 Paul,

I just read your comments about whether the gospel is scandalous or not.  You asked where the gospel is described as scandalous?  Are you unaware that the word translated “stumbling block” in first Corinthians one is a word from which we get our word “scandal?” The gospel is to the Jews a scandal and to the Greeks foolishness. Since I am fairly confident you would not have published my comments and I am sure you would never admit you were wrong, I decided to just send this to you by email.

Rule of thumb.  Study first, then speak or write.

Ok, so let’s go to our trusty Greek reference manual and see what the word for  “stumbling block” is in 1Corinthians 1:23. Yes, the word is “skandalon” (btw, “E-Sword” is a free download). Wow. Looks like one of the forefathers of NCT has put me in my place! That’s why I always dialogue with these guys—I have learned half of what I know from them.

But why does virtually every English translation we have translate this, “stumbling block.” BTW, having all of the English translations to refer to tells you what all of the brain trust of translators thought the best English word is for that passage. If every English translation translates a word the same way—that’s a very strong indication that it’s the best word. That’s the approach “Randy from Tulsa” took in commenting on the other post. And Bible Gateway.com is free online as well. Look, today’s parishioner has NO excuse for not being a good Berean.

So where did I go wrong? I went to my copy of The Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates. This is actually a very thick book that gives us all of the background and usages for a Greek or Hebrew word. But can I make this real easy? If you go to Google Translate and translate σκανδαλον (skandalon) into English, you get: “stumbling.” See screen shot below:

If you translate the word “scandal” (σκάνδαλο) from Greek to English, you get “scandal.” In other words, the words look the same, but they are totally different words with totally different meanings. See screen shot below:

Where translators get the “block” part of this is a little complicated, but explained well by Zodhiates. The literal idea is being trapped (ensnared) into going down a wrong path. A Greek synonym is an opportunity for stumbling and the antithesis is a pattern to follow.

Now, my question for the Southwood gang: Has JL3 ever used that argument from 1Corinthians 1:23? You guys could really save me some time on your website. But if he hasn’t, then again, what does he base this motif on? He either used errant information or none at all! Oh, and btw, what I usually learn from the NC/NCT crowd is by antithesis. And one of the biggest lessons learned here is that evil and Christian academia are not mutually exclusive. I have a hunch that Zodhiates and others labor so we will not be in bondage to their “deep knowledge.” Not by choice anyway.

paul

Unbelievable: New Calvinist Anti-Trinity Heretics Dissing TD Jakes

There they go again, the supposed stalwarts of the faith attacking soft targets to prove to themselves and everyone else that they are brave defenders of the faith once delivered by Robert Brinsmead and the Australian Forum. It’s truly enough to gag a maggot. Their usual target is Joel Osteen who is at least partially created by the New Calvinists themselves—a backlash from people starving for some practical application and sick of hearing how totally depraved we are. His prosperity gospel is unacceptable, but not completely void of spiritual common sense like New Calvinism which makes him the lesser of the two evils.

Apparently, Jakes is into Oneness Pentecostalism which teaches that the Trinity primarily finds its identity in Christ and devalues the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unnamed notable members of the heretical Gospel Coalition attempted to bully James MacDonald into cancelling an appearance by Jakes at MacDonald’s church. MacDonald refused and resigned from The Gospel Coalition board of which he was a charter member.

But what’s the difference? The Forum rejected the significance of the Trinity and emphasized Christ over the Father and Holy Spirit, and this same mentality is constantly seen among New Calvinists. John Piper often states that, “God entered history through Christ.” He also continually refers to “the imputed righteousness of Christ” as the bases of our justification. This is a blatant contradiction to Scripture which always refers to our imputed righteousness as coming from God the Father. John MacArthur is far less ambiguous, stating the following in the forward of a book written by New Calvinist Kool-aid drinker Rick Holland:

This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts….They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42).  That is the only blueprint for church ministry that has any sanction from Scripture….The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock.

 

paul

What’s Causing This New Covenant Theologian To Act This Way?

He saw something. But all those reading forward must promise to read all of this post before you click on the link at the end of this post to see what he saw.

I have been getting emails from NCT guys in response to my latest posts. Because I believe words mean things, I’m “uneducated,” “clueless,” “unregenerate,” a “moron,” to name a few.

Because NCT guys wear you out with the same nonsense over and over again, I have learned to pick out the highlights of their falsehoods. That’s aside from them claiming to advocate Gospel Sanctification while denying they are New Calvinists.  Right.

Here’s a comment by one of them In defense of John Piper: “There is a huge difference between saying sanctification is ‘necessary’ and saying it forms any part of the basis of our right standing before God”  Then why is sanctification “necessary”? Synonyms for “necessary” are essential, required, needed, compulsory, obligatory, indispensable, basic. The guy is paid millions to communicate, why would he have not said, “resulting in sanctification” instead?  Answer: Piper, like all good Adventists, believes that sanctification completes justification.

Another statement: “This verse teaches clearly that it is the same grace that justifies us that sanctifies us.” Then sanctification is also monergistic. It’s not rocket science. That’s what Piper means by “Christ 100% for us.” Right, if sanctification is monergistic, obviously, Christ has to do it all for us. But here is where New Calvinists haven’t completely thought this through; if sanctification completes justification, then what we do in sanctification factors in whether it is doing something or nothing. The goal now is to find some formula that doesn’t “make sanctification the grounds of our justification.” Massive confusion and complicated formulas ensue.

This statement is also telling: “The believer’s union with Christ assures both our judicial fitness for heaven, righteousness, and our moral fitness for heaven, holiness.” Again, you see the necessity for a doctrine that prepares us for some kind of future judgment concerning “fitness for heaven.” In some way, we must be kept righteous. Not so, we have already been declared righteous and the full righteousness of God has been credited to our account. It’s a done deal. Because NCT holds to a fusion of justification and sanctification, with sanctification linking the two together with glorification, we need to (supposedly) be KEPT in a righteous standing during the sanctification process.

What did the New Covenant guy see?

paul

How Most Pastors Today Use The Bible

“….if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.”

 

I’m wondering; can we begin calling our present day, “The Age of the Australian Forum”? If you really want to understand what’s going on in the church theologically, read the Forum’s journal: Present Truth Magazine. It can be obtained online for free through a Progressive Adventist church that archived most of the issues.

The Forum’s hermeneutic was based on their thesis, the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) which is supposedly the lost doctrine of the Reformation. It’s monergism on steroids. We are so wicked and totally depraved, that objective truth can only be outside of us. When truth starts being processed inside of us, the only result can be subjectivism.

What to do then? Answer: focus on central truth that is the “power of the gospel.” Basically, gospel, gospel, and more gospel transforms us into Christ likeness. We need to saturate ourselves with information about the works of Christ, not anything we would do. Hence, pithy truisms like, “Not, ‘What would Jesus do?’ But, ‘What has Jesus done.’”

Supposedly, saturating ourselves with what Jesus has done, not anything that we would do fills our hearts with gratitude and makes us willing and joyful participants in obedience. However, the key is to focus on gospel and then allow works to flow from that. Obedience when we don’t feel like it, or out of duty, is not “done in love” And, the point isn’t how well we do that—because we are not “under law, but under grace.” The point is not to “obey in our own efforts.” Results are not the goal, we can’t affect any results anyway; the goal is to avoid “making our sanctification the basis of our justification.” In other words, all works must flow from justification truth and the “power of the gospel.” Just focus on gospel, and let the “active obedience of Christ” take care of the rest.

This is because Christ was not only obedient to the cross (known as His “passive” obedience), but also lived a perfect life so that His obedience for sanctification could be imputed to us as well (Christ’s “active” obedience). Hence, and don’t miss this, if we try to obey in sanctification, we are trying to accomplish works that have already been finished by Christ as part of the atonement, and thus making our sanctification the grounds of our justification because the two are fused together  and part of the atonement with Christ living a perfect life here on Earth for one, and dying for the other. Got that?  This makes sanctification very tricky business. At any time, we could be unwittingly “making our sanctification the grounds of our justification.”

Come now, admit it, we hear this lingo all the time reverberating throughout churchianity.

Where does the use of the Bible fit into all of this? Answer: it is a tool for the gospel contemplationism needed to transform us into the likeness of Christ. All of the commands in the Bible are to remind us of the fact that Christ obeyed all of them for us (this is the basis of the New Calvinist motto, “Christ for us”). Biblical imperatives are supposed to remind us of the futility of trying to keep them ourselves while invoking thankfulness for what Jesus has done “for us,” not anything we do. However, polity framework is considered to be a separate issue. They concede that the Bible contains guidelines for structuring the church, but that is for practical function and is separate from “spiritual formation.”  Moreover, this view contends that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Bible is used to see the gospel in a deeper and deeper way. And also, aside from practical use for structuring, seeing the Bible through the prism of gospel (ie., Christ the person and His works) interprets the Bible itself for all uses in “spiritual formation.”

Now, since Christ already fulfilled the law and imputed it to us, our goal isn’t to follow specific imperatives in the Bible, but rather to fulfill the “higher law of love” that Christ has instituted to replace the “fulfilled” law which is now abrogated by the “higher law of Christ.” What does that look like?! Answer: it looks like whatever the gospel produces! Because, when it’s the result of the gospel, it can’t be wrong! If the elders of your church are “saturated with the gospel”—they can’t be wrong, and it may, or may not look like “the dead letter of the law,” ie., biblical imperatives not seen in their “gospel context.” As Francis Chan states it: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.”

Look folks, this ministry sees this approach to the Bible fleshing itself out in real-life church situations daily: “But, but, how can they do this?! It is clearly against Scripture!” No, in their minds, it is against a law that has been abrogated by the higher law of Christ. “But, but, what’s that?” Answer: whatever results in the elders being saturated with the gospel, that’s what.  And then there is the whole issue of New Calvinist elders poo—pooing  church constitutions and by-laws. Trust me, if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.

Let me tell you what the perfect cover is and why so many pastors get away with using the Bible this way. In fact, I will begin to explain with a question: how many great sermons can be preached about the awesomeness of Christ and all that He has done for us? Answer: how many books has John Piper written? And people rave about all of them! But what is missing? Answer: aside from a truckload, Matthew 7:24-27. One of the best friendships I have was brought about when she objected to an article I wrote along these lines, and mentioned a book by John Piper that was supposedly “full of biblical instruction.” I then responded and encouraged her to reread the book and list every biblical life application she could find. She did just that and contacted me by email: “Your right. This is a real eye opener.”

What prompted this post? I read this article here:  article link.  Read it for yourself and let me know if it rings any bells.

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 26; Some Questions for the Southwood “Ruling Elders”

Dear Southwood ruling elders,

In your letter to the congregation (which you posted on the World Wide Web), you say that Larroux’s theology has been fully vetted by the Presbytery and found to be in accord with the Westminster Confession, and the larger and shorter Catechisms.

But throughout the time that he has been there, Larroux has referred to his own beliefs as “scandalous.” The scandalous this, the scandalous that, the scandalous other, etc. Where has it ever been said that the Westminster Confession of Faith is “scandalous”? In fact, where in the Bible does it say that the gospel is scandalous? How can “good news” also be scandalous?

Do any of the four Presbyteries that vetted him think the WCF is scandalous? Did Larroux inform the congregation going in that he considered his beliefs to be scandalous? And if he didn’t, should he have done so?

Words mean things. Synonyms for “scandalous” are: shocking; outrageous; immoral; shameful; indecent; reprehensible; appalling. I’m thinking that these things fall under the realm of full discloser. Is it just me?

paul

The New Calvinist Agenda: Take Over All of the Church With COGOUS

A New Calvinist takeover is coming to a church near you—probably yours. Is that a good thing? Well, think with me: they think the original doctrine of the Reformation was lost shortly after it made its impact. And, it was recently rediscovered by men like John Piper. In fact, Piper doesn’t think most of us are really “ready” for the recently rediscovered Reformation that is “ongoing.” Do you doubt that? Well then, let’s pause to watch the following video:

You see, that’s why New Calvinists like Al Mohler aren’t honest about what they really believe—us poor ignorant souls are not “ready” for the whole truth yet. Bless his heart, in a letter to me last year, he lied to me and said he didn’t know anyone who believes what I described. Al was just looking out for me until am “ready.”

Who rediscovered the lost doctrine of the Reformation? Answer: a Seventh-day Adventist who is now purported to be an atheist. Of course, they don’t tell the truth about that either. Most of us Bible thumping evangelicals don’t have sense enough to know that God would use such a person to rediscover the “lost Reformation doctrine” of the centrality of the gospel completely outside of us. We just aren’t “ready” for that yet. Do you doubt that? Keeping in mind that the project headed by this man was called the Australian Forum, and their theological journal was named Present Truth, consider this statement by well-known Presbyterian John H. Armstrong:

The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.

Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.

In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high….  I do not believe that the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith can be overstated. We are once again in desperate need of recovery. Darkness has descended upon the evangelical world in North America and beyond, much as it had upon the established sixteenth-century church (The Highway blog: Article of the Month, Sola Fide: Does It Really Matter?; Dr. John H. Armstrong).

Truly, Armstrong is one of the New Calvinists that talks too much. It must drive those other guys crazy. But the survey he talked about in Present Truth can be seen in the following illustration and denotes the basics of the Forum’s thesis: COGOUS. Basically, it teaches that the new birth is not part of the gospel and that all of the gospel’s power is completely outside of us. Before we get to the illustration, do you doubt that? Well then, consider these quotes by New Calvinists and members of the Australian Forum:

But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?

~ Michael Horton

It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.

~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)

And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).

~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)

And let’s tie this in with the video that we watched as well:

In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this “upside down” gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.

~ John Piper

Now consider these illustrations from the Forum’s theological journal:

These men are out to save the church, and you had better not get in their way. The takeover mentality was ignited by this amazing “rediscovery” and fueled by visions of grandeur and the egos of men. “Founders Ministries” was an organization founded in 1982 for the sole purpose of taking over the Southern Baptist Convention with this doctrine. CCEF successfully took over NANC and formed the “Biblical Counseling Coalition” to finish the job of taking over what’s left of biblical counseling organizations.

This year’s “Together for the Gospel” (T4G) convention is not geared for individual spiritual growth, but for individuals who are dissatisfied with their church! They will be indoctrinated at the conference and sent back to their local congregations with the supposed answer to the dilemma: the lost Reformation! Observe the following T4G promo:

Of course, this is playing on the real problem in today’s churches and why they are dead—living by biblical generalities and an unwillingness to align with biblical truth at all cost. Another aspect is “stupid obedience” verses “intelligent obedience.” Learn about intelligent obedience here: http://www.nouthetic.org/

Got a sick church? Trust me, Dr. Kevorkian isn’t the answer.

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 25; Southwood Members Speak Out, and My Testimony

Published with permission:

Paul,

I came across your blog today when doing a google search for Southwood Presbyterian. It is heartbreaking when the first link that pops up regarding your church is one (of like 23 posts) regarding the takeover of your church by “New Calvinism”. I’ve been a member of Southwood for [deleted by me] and right now we are being awakened. Southwood is in serious trouble. However, the larger battle (that of New Calvinism) and the integrity of the church is what is really at stake. I don’t know what you can do if anything, however, we are contacting anyone possible in an attempt for help. The governmental system of the Presbyterian church, designed to protect us, is now being used as a weapon. Our dissenting elders are being threatened with church discipline if they speak against Jean Lerroux and his order. This week a vote is being forced on the matter. The “Session” (I put that in quotes to reflect the fact that it is far from the full Session and primarily from the Lerroux order) sent out a biased letter to persuade the congregation to vote on keeping Lerroux. [unique verbal expression deleted by me] they’re even ordering the checking of photo IDs at the door. I know it’s not [unique verbal expression deleted by me], but I never in my life thought I’d be presenting my ID as I entered church. I’ve attached the letter for your review.

I fully believe it is too late for Southwood. This has our attention now though; we aren’t going to give up. But this cannot be allowed to spread. The Church of Christ and its integrity is preeminent. I don’t know who you are or who you know but maybe you can help. Do me a favor and scrub my email (ie don’t forward it). I’d like to keep the wolves off a few more days.

Dear Southwood member,

Unless Lerroux is sent packing, the wicked actions of these men will be a memorial on this blog for all of the days it appears. And then some via published PDFs.

Commented on PPT January 23, 2012:

Paul – Our elders are responsible for all that has happened. They had plans in place before JL was even known. Their pride and arrogance is beyond comprehension. They have restructured the diaconate so they all have responsibilities that fall under the over-site of staff – which are non-ordained in some cases and a clear violation of the Book of Church Order – but they only refer to the BCO when it supports their position. Power and control is the God they are embracing. They don’t even trust the diaconate enough to let them do their work as the bible and BCO direct. They don’t trust in what God has prescribed. They know how to promise correction to appease the congregation in heated moments but then never deliver on their promises. In this week’s hoopla of hooplas, they are pushing for a congregational vote without any of the truth getting out to the congregation, which gives them the best chance to survive and win the church. I suspect they will then leave our denomination and take a beautiful church facility with them. This way they will not have to answer to anyone else. But ….. they will answer to God. It is all in His hands. Thank you for bearing the constant burden of heralding such painful truths for others to read and discern for themselves.

“They had plans in place before JL was even known.” Right, a couple of New Calvinists got on the Session and then they went looking for a New Calvinist pastor. And of course, the other elders had no clue as to what New Calvinism is. After all, it didn’t even have a label until 2008. The “Sonship” label was mostly dropped in 2000 because Jay Adams and Van Dixhoorn shot it full of holes. When folks caught on to the fact that Sonship had gone underground, it was dubbed “Gospel Sanctification” in 2004.

This is like most New Calvinist hostile takeovers. In the situation I was in, the pastor presented himself as a traditional grammatical-historical guy, but the front doors of the church had barley hit the former pastor in the backside before his preaching became radically different. Many people left without having a clue as to what was going on—they just knew something wasn’t right. But what a shame to have to leave a church without knowing why! I at least wanted to know why. It was the only church my children ever knew and I was a former elder there. We were members there twenty years, and I was unwittingly instrumental in the pastor obtaining the pastor/teacher position.

Once he got in, he started bringing in acquaintances from other churches that shared this same doctrine (about five families from a particular church across town). They began to plan a takeover behind the scenes. Unknown to the rest of the congregation, sitting elders were being strong-armed. In fact, one fled the state. Another man who wasn’t an elder, but was a notable leader in the church, fled the state as well. You must understand this: to a Reformed Baptist, church discipline is death, and these were respected men.

Church discipline is a scarlet letter that follows you the rest of your life. Praise to our awesome God, they have done to me all that they can do. Out of the situation, I was able to salvage a relationship with my son that they also tried to take from me, slandering me to him and showering him with gifts; for example, a laptop. He now lives with Susan and me. Before I parted ways with that church, and after they realized I figured out what they were doing, they offered to pay for my fire system design degree. I knew what they were doing and declined. Shortly thereafter, they began to drive a wedge between my wife and me. In fact, they instructed her to give them personal files from my computer and report to them who I was associating with. They were particularly intimidated by my relationship with the elder that had fled the state. My wife was instructed to read our emails. I know this because my wife would print the documents, and write copious notes on them before she passed them on to the elders. I found document copies that she had retained for herself that were in draft stage and never completed, but with notes on them. Catch my drift?

So, without writing a book, let me say that New Calvinists have done everything to me they can do; therefore, my message to them is, “Bring it!”

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 24; Southwood Under Siege

Susan and I read the letter posted on the Southwood website that was written by the “elders” of Southwood. We were undismayed by certain parts of it because of what we know of like situations, and didn’t know how much of the letter would be perceived as normal among Presbyterians. Now we know. Not very much would be deemed normal and our déjà vu (no pun intended) inklings were confirmed.

I’m not going to say how we know, but we are not totally on the outside looking in, and it’s bad.  Bottom line: New Calvinists are mean people. As I have said before and I will say again, “They are terrorists dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers.”

The beginning of the letter was indicative of the usual heavy-handed leadership style of New Calvinists:

Following months of discussion about concerns and questions brought before our church last Fall, particularly regarding our Senior Pastor and his continued service at Southwood, the Session has voted to call a congregational meeting on Sunday, January 29, 2012 for the purpose of voting on the following motion:

“The congregation of Southwood Presbyterian Church requests that Providence Presbytery dissolve the pastoral relationship between Jean F. Larroux, III and Southwood Presbyterian Church.”

The motion is written in the negative because our constitution does not allow for a ‘vote of confidence’ or re-affirmation. The call of a pastor is considered binding until such time as it might be rescinded. During the same Session meeting where this congregational meeting was called, our Elders also voted on the issue of their support for Jean Larroux. All men voted by secret ballot to allow each and every Elder to freely vote his conscience. The result of their vote was a clear and decisive majority in support of our Senior Pastor and against this motion. The recommendation of the Session to you as a congregation is that you should vote against this motion and in doing so you will be voting in favor of Jean Larroux remaining as our Senior Pastor.

This is a big change from a couple of months ago when things seemed to be moving away from a vote on dissolving Southwood’s relationship with Larroux, and those in favor of such a movement seemed to have been shamed by the Session:

Last evening the Session of Southwood Presbyterian Church met again to consider the matters before the church. After much prayer from both the members of the Session and members of the congregation the Lord provided a decision with no dissension or abstention. The UNANIMOUS motion reads as follows:

With repentance and conviction over our own personal and corporate sin, particularly for having stirred dissension with a premature motion delivered after Monday night’s meeting, the Session has met and deliberated further on the issues before our church. Having considered the breadth of the situation and our unified desire for the peace and purity of the church, the Session does hereby revise the purpose of the called congregational meeting to begin addressing the myriad of issues brought before us, including Jean F. Larroux, III, but we are not recommending the dissolution of the pastoral relationship with him at this meeting. Furthermore, we are in need of, thankful for and desirous to have further prayer from the congregation in all our deliberations.

In other words, some of the Southwood parishioners have an intestinal fortitude that would enable them to eat jalapeno peppers straight from the vine. It is amazing that this thing has gotten this far without outside help from the Presbyter and local pastors. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Trust me, parishioners who dare raise a stink about truth are expendable for the sake of comfortable lunches at Applebee’s and golf outings. That’s why they get together for therapy sessions every now and then to convince themselves that they really care about the truth—it’s called a pastors conference.

Much could be discussed here, including some paragraphs in the letter that seem to be designed to deliberately cause confusion about the vote, but it is clear from the letter that some elders and several parishioners have serious problems with Larroux’s theology. The Session is clearly using this letter to brush all of that aside and bully the congregation. Much could also be said about the procedure that will take place in regard to the vote; it is obviously designed to intimidate. Look, I’m not going to bang a lot of keys on this—the Session knows that there is a big difference in Larroux’s theology and orthodoxy—his sermons are obviously first degree theological felonies in broad daylight. The Session thinks they have the votes—truth isn’t the issue.

I don’t know what’s going to happen on January 29, but I hereby offer my blog to all Southwood parishioners to comment on the record, off the record, anonymously or otherwise, as guest writers, etc. There is a “SGM Survivors.com,” there can just as well be a “Southwood Survivors.com.” Their vote will either turn the tide against New Calvinist takeovers, or their loss will stand as a monument and warning to other churches. I can go away on January 29^th, or I can add a page to my blog—either way.

Why I’m I doing this? Because I don’t like bullies, liars, and false teachers. That’s why. I just have no tolerance for them. And besides, one legendary Presbyterian said that this doctrine “must be exposed and halted.” Just doing my part.

paul

Why New Calvinism is Works Salvation and a False Gospel

 

“So, as long as we don’t, ‘move on to something else’ we don’t ‘lose both.’ What does ‘lose‘ mean?”

 

I’m going to keep saying it: any doctrine that fuses justification and sanctification together is necessarily a false gospel. Sanctification does not complete justification, and sanctification does not link justification to glorification. That is why Romans 8:30 is stated the way it is. Salvation is a finished work by God alone before the foundation of the Earth and it guarantees glorification. Nothing that you do in sanctification can change that.

New Calvinism fuses justification and sanctification together. This is not even arguable; for, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.”  Here is where New Calvinism goes the way of many other works salvation systems: they erroneously make a false dichotomy between mental activity and physical effort. They think this makes the fusion of justification and sanctification possible because mental activity is supposedly not a work.

Hence, we can keep our salvation by NOT “trying to please God in our own efforts or in our own strength.”  So how do we do that? Oh, sorry, rather, “What does that look like” (as if  looking isn’t a human activity either). Answer: by contemplating more on the gospel instead of making an effort to do something because contemplation supposedly doesn’t qualify as a human activity. Instead of NOT “trying harder and doing more” we need to “contemplate more and contemplate harder.” Searching the Scriptures in search of “pictures of Jesus” is supposedly not human activity or works either.

But ANYTHING we participate in to MAINTAIN our justification IS works salvation. Indicative of this fusion is the belief that we can lose our salvation. The fusion of justification and sanctification is always coupled with the idea that we can lose our salvation; the two are mutually inclusive. If we can lose our salvation, what do we have to do to keep it? For New Calvinism, the answer is: nothing in our own effort. Salvation by Christ plus doing nothing except for contemplation. For you folks old enough to remember, it’s salvation by Bachman—Turner Overdrive theology: “we work hard at doing nothing all day.” But that is still something that we participate in to maintain our salvation.

Of course, New Calvinists would vehemently deny this, but their teachings often imply, well, “implicit” is really a better word—that we need to perform tasks to maintain our salvation daily. I’m I kidding? Well, if words really mean things, no! In Paul David Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Theological Seminary in the Spring of 2008 entitled “Playing With The Box,” he plainly stated that Romans 7:24 referred to a “daily rescue.” You do the math.

In “Christless Christianity” by Michael Horton on page 62, he states the following:

Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.

We Christians are dependent on what at every moment? Answer: the same thing that the unregenerate are dependent on. For what? Answer: spiritual life. How often? Answer: “not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh.” What happens if we “move on to something else”? Answer: “we lose both.” Both what? Answer: obviously, both justification and sanctification. So, as long as we don’t, “move on to something else” we don’t “lose both.” What does “lose” mean?

Yet another example is a comment on The Gospel Coalition blog in regard to an article written by Tullian Tchividjian:

It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!

I have quoted this example in many articles, resulting in TGC pulling the comment down. However, for some reason they thought the following comment by NCT guru Chad Bresson on the same post is more subtle:

I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.

Obviously, if obedience in sanctification was imputed to us as part of the atonement, then any attempt by us to obey in sanctification is a denial of the gospel. If at any time in our Christian life we believe that we must put forth effort—that’s works salvation. Instead, we must continue to believe in a supposed salvation by doing nothing which is really Christ plus doing nothing, but is something because it is doing nothing for the purpose of maintaining our salvation because justification and sanctification are fused.

And this of course leads to total confusion among Christians, and I believe a built-in intent of don’t you dare try sanctification at home because it could (as John Piper states it): “imperil your soul.” We supposedly need these spiritual brainiacs to guide us through the very tricky business of deciphering what is works salvation and what isn’t. Good luck with that.

This is the problem you get into when you try to toy with God’s law and its relationship to the gospel. It’s not only antinomianism, but it also tampers with salvation and the true gospel.

paul

Some Passing Thoughts About Jay Adams

As I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, I find that Jay is right: strengthening one area of your life contributes to the other areas in strengthening them as well. So, be encouraged, one area isn’t isolated among a long list of others—it all works together.

Jay has done some significant heavy lifting in regard to sanctification principles, and for our day, his materials are a vital help to God’s people. Any pastor or church that does not tap into his studies is passing on a vital gift to the church.

In the past thirty years, if there has been any kind of a reformation at all, it was born from the book, “Competent to Counsel.” Let go and let God, or meditate harder and longer and hope God will do something because it would be better if nothing happened rather than God not getting all the glory—is a message of hopelessness. I could also argue that keeping our own salvation intact by doing nothing other than meditation is a form of works salvation and a false gospel. Jay’s teachings accentuate the precious promises of the Bible that we are NOT  helpless in our situations if we will do things God’s way. We can do something! And God will help us!

Jay is a master encourager. There is one of his books that I think defines him as a person. The title is, “The Case of the Hopeless Marriage” Jay delights in the opportunity to show what God will do if we obey him. The bigger the problem, the more glory for God.

I am now well past what I was originally going to write, but another thing that is indicative of Jay’s ministry is his desire that the saints have their questions answered. Yes, I know, it’s blaspheme in our day—to not believe that “what should I do?”  is the wrong question. Supposedly, the right question is always, “what has Jesus done?” That’s why his recent book, “Fifty Difficult Passages Explained” is so Jay-like (and I have a hunch that they are not all about the gospel).

In my own life, my divorce situation was an over-the-top bizarre situation. Pastors flippantly told me that I could remarry, but couldn’t back it up with definitive biblical wisdom. I read Adams’ “Marriage, Divorce, And  Remarriage In The Bible” without any hope that the 100-page book would address my situation specifically. Wrong! I was amazed that such a definitive answer could be obtained in my situation.

Frankly, any pastor or church that is not utilizing the INS program in totality is missing the boat in a big way, and passing on a powerful resource for helping God’s people.

paul

New Calvinism and the “Missional” Church

New Calvinism propagates so much error in so many different ways, and directions, that it is very difficult to cover it all.  This ministry regrets that we have not been able to write on the so-called “missional” aspect of New Calvinism.  So, special thanks to 5Pt. Salt for this piece that is one of the few written to date that confronts this element.

 

  http://5ptsalt.com/2011/02/21/the-missional-church-an-attempt-to-combine-the-great-commission-with-unbiblical-ideas/

What Exactly is New Calvinism? Its Five Major Tenets and Their Sources

The Core Four of the Australian Forum

In1970, a think tank was initiated to systematize the “lost Reformation doctrine of justification.” The project was the brainchild of Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-day Adventist theologian. Their theological journal was “Present Truth Magazine.” Brinsmead came from a family of respected Adventist theologians, and was active in the “justification debate” within Adventism.

He was joined by two Anglican theologians, Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Clearly, Paxton was enamored by an Adventist motif that presented Adventism as the gatekeepers of Reformation doctrine. This is a major theme of his book, “The Shaking of Adventism.” Goldsworthy was a proponent of “Biblical Theology,” or “Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics” which has deep roots in neo-orthodoxy and modernist theology. Neo-orthodoxy and Modernism are the products of liberal, philosophical theology that was born among European philosophers and theologians (primarily in Germany). Biblical Theology was invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp Gabler  (1753-1826), and was later remodeled by philosopher/theologian Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949). Many consider Graeme Goldsworthy as the one who has taken the torch forward from Vos.

The clear, stated goal of the Forum was to systematize Reformation doctrine to prevent it from being lost again (ref. p. 34 The Truth About New Calvinism). The Forum was later joined by Jon Zens who discovered the Forum through Present Truth which was widely distributed at Westminster Seminary where Zens was a student. Zens was deeply concerned with the relationship between law and gospel and how the two related to covenants.

The Unifying Central Crux

And all agreed on one thing: the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone had been lost because of subjectivism, ie., the Bible being interpreted through personal experience. They all agreed that Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialist theology was indicative, and at the very crux of what caused Reformation doctrine to be lost. Existentialism teaches that truth becomes truth for an individual when he accepts it as such according to his/her own experience (very subjective, iffy, fuzzy). The Forum believed that Rome/Protestantism set a tsunami of subjectivism into motion through emphasizing the new birth which supposedly encouraged existentialism-like doctrines. The Forum believed that ALL doctrine can be divided into two categories: Reformation or Romanism, and most of Protestantism ended up following Rome’s subjective gospel based on personal experience. Volume 25 of Present Truth Magazine dealt with the Forum’s view on this and included an article written by Zens on Existentialism.

The Cure: Tenet One; COGOUS

Brinsmead’s first theological frame that launched Progressive Adventism (the “Awakening” movement) taught that Christ stands in the judgment for us as opposed to the traditional Adventist view that Christians are enabled by God to obtain perfection in order to stand in the judgment. For lack of a better way of stating it; subconsciously, many Adventist weren’t buying it. The whole idea that Christ stands in our place and presents His righteousness for us in the judgment was exceedingly good news.

Brinsmead was afforded credibility across denominational lines because he supposedly came to this conclusion by studying Reformation doctrine, and the results seemed to speak for themselves. Everybody, especially Reformed folks, wanted to jump on the Brinsmead bandwagon. Present Truth was the most publicized theological journal of that time, and at least one edition printed one million copies.

Of course, the basic defect in comparison to orthodoxy is the view that there will be a future judgment for Christians in regard to maintaining our justification, which is already a settled matter. As an aside, one wonders if this defect is by design—if our justification is already a settled matter, what do we need pricy theologians for?  A judgment to determine our rewards lowers the bar considerably.

But Brinsmead’s second theological frame (a tweaking of the first in regard to some eschatological issues, ie., when does the judgment occur in redemptive history?) settled the subjectivism issue as well as being found truly righteous at the judgment: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS). This taught that we have NO righteousness in, and of ourselves for purposes of justification, and that all truth must be based on the gospel that is outside of us without regard to personal experience. But remember, just like the Romanism it despised (and the Adventism that it was enamored by), the Forum saw sanctification as a process that maintains and completes justification, or a road that links justification and glorification. So, COGOUS applied to both justification and sanctification. The doctrine was illustrated by the Forum using the following visual aid in volume 21 of Present Truth:

Therefore, the gospel was the measure of all truth, and all objective truth had to come from outside of us. All change had to come from outside of us as well. Christ does NOT do His work INSIDE of us. All New Calvinist thought begins with this premise. If Christ works within us, this makes us colaborers in justification so that we can be found righteous at the judgment. It is also seen as “emptying ourselves” and “dying to self.” It is anti-existentialism on steroids. But not really; as we will see, this objective puritanism leads to a hyper-subjectivism that characterizes New Calvinism.

Element One of COGOUS: Gospel Sanctification

The term “Gospel Sanctification,” was coined by this ministry in 2004 and picked up by others. COGOUS split into two notable theologies in the 80’s: New Covenant Theology and Sonship Theology. Both endured a violent push back among Baptists and Presbyterians to the point of going underground. “Sonship Theology” became “Gospel Transformation.” The movement functioned for ten years without a name; and in fact, experienced astronomical growth during that time. Based on the slogans, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” slogans that show its undisputable kinship to COGOUS, “Gospel Sanctification” became a useful tool for identifying the doctrine. Gospel Sanctification is the subject of  “Another Gospel” which was never published. The movement was dubbed, “New Calvinism” in 2008.

Element Two of COGOUS: Gospel Contemplationism

Spiritual contemplationism is certainly nothing new. Spiritual growth via contemplating the works of Christ, and using the Bible to do so can be found among the earliest Adventist theologians, especially Ellen White (according to citations noted by Paxton in The Shaking of Adventism). White was always in the thick of trying to reconcile Adventist perfectionism with grace and law. Sanctification by Gospel Contemplationism has always been an apt companion for doctrines that want to reduce the role of the Christian to the lowest common denominator. Most of these ideas came from European philosophers posing as theologians. Gospel Contemplationism, like Gospel Sanctification, puts feet on the doctrine.

Tenet Two: Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics

Starting with Gabler, this hermeneutic (method of interpretation) makes the Bible a historical narrative about the gospel. Through deeper and deeper knowledge of the gospel, we are “wowed” and “motivated by gratitude.” This makes the Bible a perfect tool for contemplationism rather than instruction and propositional truth. Redemptive Historical hermeneutics, or “Biblical Theology” has its origin in Modernism and neo-orthodox theology. This may seem contradictory to New Calvinism’s supposed stance against existentialism, but this method actually leads to all kinds of subjectivism because a gospel interpretation is forced upon the whole Bible.

Tenet Three: New Covenant Theology  

Jon Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981. Brinsmead and Zens worked together closely on how law and covenants relate to COGOUS. New Calvinists usually stay aloof from any association to NCT because of its direct link to Zens and the Forum. Though New Calvinists are not shy about playing the  “all truth is God’s truth” card, they would rather not have to explain how their doctrine was contrived by a Seventh-day Adventist who is now purported to be an atheist. DA Carson is a good example of a New Calvinists that gives hefty support to NCT while pretending to be merely sympathetic to some of its tenets. Founders Ministries, a SBC organization founded in the early 80’s for the sole purpose of taking over the convention via COGOUS (and falsely associating the doctrine with a well-known Southern Baptist theologian), even claims to be anti-NCT. Founders Ministries has also been challenged to explain their claim that they published “In Defense of the Decalogue” which is a treatise against NCT.

Tenet Four: Heart Theology

This theology was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which forms the basis of counseling curriculum at Westminster Seminary. The doctrine is based on Sonship Theology—Powlison specifically stated that as fact while giving a presentation at John Piper’s church. Powlison also stated that Gospel Sanctification (not the exact terminology he used) was the primary difference between his counseling philosophy and that of Jay Adams. In other words—a fundamental difference in how they interpret the gospel. See chapter 9 of “The Truth About New Calvinism.” How People Change, written by Paul David Tripp (an understudy of Powlison), is a treatise on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change, and practically a word for word recital of COGOUS.

In the tradition of New Calvinism’s takeover mentality, CCEF now controls almost all of the major counseling organizations, and the Biblical Counseling Coalition was recently organized to aid in that purpose.

Tenet Five: Christian Hedonism

This was concocted by John Piper in the 80’s as an important addition to COGOUS. Though Piper avoids any connections to the Forum like the Bubonic Plague, he showed his hand and specific allegiance to COGOUS when he wrote an article on a series of lectures that Graeme Goldsworthy did at Southern Seminary. See chapter 4 of The Truth About New Calvinism.

Before Piper attended Fuller Seminary, which advocated neo-orthodoxy during the time he attended there (they even hosted appearances by Karl Barth, the contemporary father of neo-orthodoxy), he majored in philosophical literature. Immediately upon graduating from Fuller in 1971, he went to Germany to study under modernist/neo-orthodox theologians. Piper’s theological upbringing is extremely suspect and warrants surprise in regard to his present popularity in Christian circles.

After jumping on the Brinsmead bandwagon, he saw a deficiency in COGOUS. It is best explained by somebody who witnessed the unfolding of the Awakening movement firsthand:

Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:

The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.”

True sanctification looks away from self and flows from the finished, objective work of Christ…. For many Christians, the glory of the crucified Christ is not their focus; instead they seek internal experiences that eclipse the cross. The Awakening rightly opposed the subjective, human-centered emphasis found among some groups within Christianity. Wrongly, they reacted with a cerebral, spiritless gospel. Brinsmead strongly opposed the Charismatic movement’s emphasis on experiences as a return to the theology of Rome.

However, going to another extreme, Present Truth magazine decried “the false gospel of the new birth,” and offered a new birth that was merely a corporate, objective blessing, not an individual experience.

John Piper to the Rescue

COGOUS was in danger of instigating the same kind of response that prompted existentialism: a pushback regarding indifference to the human experience. COGOUS supplied a theological frame that supposedly demolished the root of all false doctrine, but still didn’t deal with the human experience angle. This would explain why Piper is such a hero in this movement—he probably saved it. Christian Hedonism strongly emphasizes how COGOUS is experience (joy) while staying true to its strong emphasis on monergism. And, joy is a result of what we contemplate, not anything we do.

Conclusion

COGOUS is the doctrine/backbone of New Calvinism; Biblical Theology (RHH) is its hermeneutic; New Covenant Theology articulates COGOUS’s relationship to law and gospel; Heart Theology is its practical application (as far as that goes); and Christian Hedonism is how COGOUS is experienced. It’s the complete package. It is the first complete theological system for let go and let God theology ever devised in church history. It is powerful, and is a latter-day antinomian blitzkrieg of biblical proportions.

But the gigs up. Few Christians will buy into the idea that God used Robert Brinsmead to rediscover the lost Reformation doctrine. Trust me, it was never lost to begin with.  I will conclude with a statement by John H. Armstrong that describes the New Calvinist motif, and a Piper video that contains subtle illusions to what they believe:

The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.

Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.

In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.

A visual illustration of the issue Armstrong is talking about follows:

And here is the Piper video:

NANC’s Salvation by Working at Doing Nothing

Thanks to the reader who sent me a recent article by “counselor” Rick Thomas—a Fellow with the annexed National Association of Nouthetic Counseling. The article utilizes a wide body of New Calvinist theology and thought which originated with a Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist (the doctrine is presently known as “New Calvinism”). NANC, which is now an embodiment of false doctrine, and unfortunately under the auspices of counseling, continues to thrive on the neo-evangelicalism that godly pastors warned the church about in the latter sixties. Neo-evangelicalism is an attitude/philosophy promoted by neo-orthodoxy for purposes of promoting itself.

It goes something like this: “You can’t change something unless you remain a part of it.” “The way to bring about change is through infiltration.” “Be careful what you judge: all truth is God’s truth.” Neo-evangelicalism rejects the biblical concept of protecting the church by separation and cutting off provisions. CCEF used the neo-evangelicalism mentality to take over NANC, and today NANC thrives as a sinister network where pastors unwittingly send flock members to be slaughtered by ravenous wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Henceforth, this article by Thomas is an excellent insight into the black heart of NANC counseling, and a firsthand look at how NANC counseling points thousands of sheep down a road of slow spiritual death on a daily basis. But not only that , this post will explain how we got here.

Thomas begins his article (I’m not kidding: “The Danger of Trying to Please God”) with a description of “Sandra’s” problem:

Sandra has struggled all her life with people pleasing.

She said she could not remember a time when she was free from thinking about what others thought about her.

The way she dresses, the car she drives, the technology she carries, and the house she owns are all controlled to some degree by what others think of her.

A peek into her life

• She is fanatical about working out because of her keen awareness of what a “nice looking body” should look like.

• On a few occasions she has caught herself stretching the truth. She says she spins her stories because the real story doesn’t seem as interesting.

• She is fearful of bringing a bag lunch to the office because everyone else goes out to a local restaurant to eat. She’d rather go into debt than feeling like the odd man out.
• She has a low-grade anger toward her boyfriend because he pressured her to have sex with him. She believed he would leave her if she didn’t have sex. She needs to be loved by someone. Having a boyfriend is one of her ways of feeling significant.

Her biblical counselor quickly discerned that her problem was fear of man (Proverbs 29:25). The counselor told her she needed to be more concerned with pleasing God rather than others.

From there, the counselor laid out a plan of prayer, Bible study, and service oriented activities in order for her to practice a lifestyle of pleasing God.

The mistake the counselor made was not carefully unpacking what pleasing God meant to an idolater like Sandra. Sandra is an idolater who has been living a performance-driven, people pleasing lifestyle.

When she was told that she needed to be more willing to please God than man, it was not a difficult thing for her to do. People pleasing was what she knew best. Unfortunately, she was not told what pleases God so she did what she has always done–she ratcheted up her obedience.

First, Thomas sets the table with the whole first generation/second generation of biblical counseling motif. Supposedly, first generation NANC counselors solve every counseling situation by whipping out a legal pad and giving the counselee a list of do’s and don’ts. Well, I was counseled by the President of NANC, Dr. (unfortunately, the “Dr.” part came from CCEF’s version of Sonship Theology which is banned in many Presbyterian churches) John Street in the late 80’s and at the time he was definitely “first generation.” And trust me, that was NOT his approach. Presently, I do not know if John is a neo-evangelical, or a New Calvinist. Obviously, I would prefer the prior. But as President of the NANC monstrosity, he is at least that on steroids.

Thomas, aside from setting up a false scenario for interpretation, plays a card often exploited by New Calvinist counselors: First generation counseling solved a problem that was extremely prevalent in the church before Jay Adams came along. I call it, “stupid obedience.” Christians were trying to function on biblical generalities which led to the sheep not getting help for real problems. This led to the church turning to the world to get answers. The Adams reformation brought what I call “intelligent obedience” to the table, and the results speak for themselves. It also gave the counselee hope as opposed to, “There is nothing we can do for this patient but pray for a miracle.” We don’t like to hear that from a doctor, do we? Second generation counselors were not smart enough to figure that out, but nevertheless think they are the saviors of the contemporary church.

But specifically, what they do is to assign the problem that first generation counseling solved, to first generation counseling, and that’s a lie. Here, Thomas refers to it as “ratcheting up obedience.” What it really is—is more stupid obedience on top of stupid obedience. He exploits this misconception throughout his article, and in the end, Sandra thinks the poor counseling she got (if it was genuinely presented to begin with, which I doubt) is first generation, rather than what first generation solved. And of course, stupid obedience is still prevalent in the church today because CCEF interfered with the first generation reformation while aided by the mentality of neo-evangelicalism.

Let us now take a trip back into history to find out how we got here, and then we will deal with Mr. Thomas. The vast majority of today’s “biblical counseling” is based on a doctrine known as the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Thomas’ article is a mini treatise on that doctrine.  As Susan and I continue to research how this all came about, we are continually amazed. In volume one of  The Truth About New Calvinism, we focused on the basics of the doctrine and conceded to a second volume in favor of more research. Granted, the really big picture is drawn on the fact that antinomianism will be an ever-increasing reality as the Lord’s return grows closer. That was heavily emphasized in the first volume, but there is also a contemporary dynamic that is part of the picture.

For hundreds of years, theologians have sought to solidify a doctrine that is a middle ground between philosophy and fundamentalism. Or, if you will, “a happy medium between dogma and appreciation of human experience.” Or, between literal interpretation and interpretation that lends itself to other possibilities. You get the picture.

First, neo-orthodoxy sought to do that. Hence, it has always been a hybrid of orthodoxy and liberalism. That is why most of its tenets contain orthodox terminology with unorthodox ideas. This has always been the major accusation and complaint against neo-orthodoxy: it’s very subtle and resides in the mainstream. It’s an inside job.

At some point, neo-orthodoxy created a masterpiece called “Biblical Theology.” This is a hermeneutic (method of biblical interpretation) that is “truth as myth.” It promotes a truth as revealed in history, ie., the whole Bible is a historical narrative that contains the truth of salvation and reveals the works of redemption via that narrative. While that truth is literal dogma (appeals to fundamentalism), it doesn’t necessitate a literal interpretation for the purposes of dogmatic instruction (appeals to liberals). Whether or not the details of the story are to be taken literally or not, and whether or not the Bible is perfectly inerrant or not, is not the point—the truth that the passage conveys about the truth is the point.

Somewhat like Jesus’ parables. Is the purpose of those parables to convey truth? Absolutely. Are all of those stories necessarily actual events that really happened? No. That’s not the point, the truth conveyed by the parable is the point. And the crux of that truth is the gospel. Can the whole Bible really be a meta-narrative about redemption? Well, as the reasoning goes, would the Bible have been written if sin had not entered the world? No. Then for what other reason would it have been written? One must admit, it’s clever, and you can see how it caters to those who are concerned about literal truth as well as those who want to maintain the intellectual freedom of the individual. But in essence, you have them both agreeing on the gospel! Supposedly. And as a result, discussion on how to interpret gospel truth through that narrative is a huge playground where everyone can play nicely together; after all, we are all after the same gospel truth, right?  Look, just go to any website dedicated to Redemptive Historical hermeneutics and these ideas are stated throughout. One example is Vossed World, a blog authored by an elder at one of the most well-known NANC training centers in the country.

But neo-orthodoxy, despite its masterpiece of unity, has always been fragmented and has experienced up and down success. In the US, it experienced a surge in the 40’s and 50’s, and then was nearly snuffed out in the early 60’s by doctrinal apologists. Therefore, there has always been an effort to discover the specific weakness that has plagued neo-orthodoxy from the beginning.

And the prize goes to Robert Brinsmead. He was the product of debate that came from a longstanding theological journey within the realm of Seventh-day Adventism. The crux of the debate within Adventism was justification, and first surfaced at their 1888 convention, then again in 1952. Brinsmead blew the whole debate wide open with his first theological frame that gave birth to the “Awakening” movement which turned Adventism on its head.

This led to a second theological frame invented by Brinsmead that answered contentions presented by E. Heppenstall and Desmond Ford. That theological frame was the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us which had a huge appeal for Reformed theologians enamored by various philosophies. Brinsmead, an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, and a Biblical Theology buff named Graeme Goldsworthy went to work in 1970 to develop Brinsmead’s doctrine into a consistent theological system that would stand the test of time. The project was called the Australian Forum, and it launched neo-orthodoxy into outer space. Neo-orthodoxy and its bosom buddy,  Redemptive Historical hermeneutics, now had a skeleton to hold the flesh on: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Hold on and don’t think ahead too far. Let me explain this a step at a time.

This doctrine is hard to get your mind around, but for the most part, it took the justification concept of the gospel’s alien righteousness completely separate from us and applied it to sanctification. Therefore, the doctrine denied the significance of the new birth (as do many New Calvinsts). But it had a basic flaw in its premise that forms the basis of understanding for the rest of what I am about to explain. I will get to how this doctrine works itself out as we progress.

The basic flaw is the fusion of justification and sanctification. Adventist debate always tried to work this problem out from that standpoint.  Sanctification was seen as something that completes justification until we arrive at glorification. In other words, sanctification is not seen as something totally separate from justification that happens in a space of time between justification and glorification, but rather a connecting road between the two. That’s a huge problem. If sanctification is the “growing part of salvation,” (I have said this myself) then what is our part?  But salvation (justification) does not grow! It is a finished act by God that takes place before creation! This was the Adventist dilemma: what can we do to maintain our just standing before God  in order to be ready for the judgment?  I triple-emphasize “just standing before God” for a reason. Don’t lose sight of that phrase.

Please note: 99% of all false doctrine is based on this misconception. The Adventists primary model stated that we are declared righteous at the point of our salvation, and all of our past sins are forgiven, but with the help of the Holy Spirit, and the fact that we are born again as new creatures, we could obtain perfectionism and therefore be ready to stand righteous before God in the judgment. Of course, with all doctrines that are founded on the fusion of justification and sanctification, it is believed that you can lose your salvation. If you can lose your salvation, what do you have to do to keep it? The necessity of the question itself reveals a salvation by works. However, this is why many false religions dumb-down the law and mix it with the traditions of men, or reduce it to mere ritual—it makes its keeping for salvation plausible. The fact that Adventists stood on the authority of Scripture didn’t make that Catholic-like option possible.

When you begin with the fusion of justification and sanctification which is completed with glorification, you can only have two results: forgiveness for all past sins and a role for us in maintaining a righteousness that will stand in the judgment (Christ plus works/ritual), or the maintaining of our just standing before God without our participation (antinomianism/let go and let God). Brinsmead opted for the second approach. But though these two options have been stated, really, as we shall see, BOTH are really works salvation. In real Christianity, our justification is a settled matter. We can do NOTHING in sanctification to add to our justification or take away from it. Sanctification is concerned with kingdom living and our walk with God. The concern that what we do in sanctification could unwittingly affect the “grounds of our justification”  is an oxymoron using a red herring to mislead a straw man. That’s my way of trying to say that it is ridiculous times three.

So, Brinsmead’s doctrine stated that all righteousness for justification and sanctification was completely outside of us. He had to concede that we can have no role in the maintaining of justification. One of the primarily tenets of the doctrine also held that any work done by God inside of us was the infusion of grace within us, “making sanctification the grounds for our justification.”  The Australian Forum also taught that if God did any kind of work inside of us—that was imputing His righteousness within us and involving us in the maintaining of justification.  They believed that this was a fundamental error that was at the root of all false doctrine and was the very crux of the Reformation. They believed that this was the fundamental error of Romanism—that righteousness was imputed to us via the new birth and that Christ worked in us. Again, this supposedly infused grace within us and made us a part of the justification process. For salvation to be by grace alone, all righteousness and grace had to remain outside of us.

This is key because it enables justification and sanctification to be fused without the possibility of losing your salvation because you don’t have anything to lose. No righteousness was ever imparted to you to begin with, it’s salvation by faith alone in the strictest sense of the meaning—faith and absolutely nothing else. Hence, it is the imputed righteousness of Christ that maintains our justification in sanctification, not our own, and a righteousness that is also outside of us. Christ’s righteousness is not imputed to us personally, it is imputed to our sanctification. 

So by now you are certainly incredulous, and want to ask the following: so what in the world do we do? Answer: live by faith. According to New Calvinism, sanctification is to be lived by faith alone. How in the world do we do that? Answer: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith.  Let me repeat that: by offering the perfect works of Christ by faith. That is the New Calvinist definition of faith.

How do we do that? Answer: gospel contemplationism. This is where neo-orthodoxy and it’s intimate lover, Biblical Theology come together with the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Though there are aberrations and slight variations, we partake in ‘beholding as a way of becoming.” Therefore, the Bible is a historical narrative that enables us to meditate on the works of Christ in redemptive history—a tool for gospel contemplationism—not to be taken literally for instruction purposes. All of the obedience that occurs as a result is the ”active obedience of Christ” and not our own. And this work is not taking place inside of us, it is “spiritual formation” or a “manifestation of Christ.” These manifestations are validated by effortless obedience accompanied by joy. Though variations of how this works with the central doctrine is allowable, all that is required is to stay faithful to the “Reformation” doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us—anything else that fits with the primary frame is fair game and acceptable, and a virtual neo-orthodoxy  love-fest.

With all that in mind, let’s now revisit Rick Thomas’ counsel to Sandra where we left it and  see if we detect any parallels.

Who can please God?

And a voice came from heaven, You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased. – Mark 1:11 (ESV)

Christ pleases God. Anything the Son does pleases the Father. Jesus came to do the will of the Father and He completed that task perfectly. The Father received the finished work of the Son and now a way has been made for us to please the Father by accepting the Son’s work.

Without faith it is impossible to please him. – Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)

A Christian, who is living by faith in the works of the Son, is pleasing God. Pleasing God is not about what we do, but about believing in the only One who could authentically please the Father. Even on our best day, with our best works, we would not be acceptable to God.

We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. – Isaiah 64:6 (ESV)

Sandra is a Christian. However, she is not seeking to please God by trusting (faith) in Him. She is still performing, but this time she is performing for the Father, hoping to get a good grade.

Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.

Here, we see clearly the Australian Forum’s doctrine of offering the works of Christ in sanctification as a definition of living by faith alone. Also, “Who can please God?” is a rhetorical question. This is the Forum’s position that we have no righteousness within us that can affect actions that please God. It must be done with the works of Christ offered by faith.

 What about obedience?

Obedience is obviously hugely important to any Christian. However, the key is to make sure that your obedience is not an effort to please God, but a response to your faith in God. This is the context when Paul told the Corinthians that:

We make it our aim to please him. – 2 Corinthians 5:9 (ESV)

Paul was trying to get the Corinthians to understand that pleasing God was a walk by faith rather than by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7). The context for the passage was Paul’s appeal to get them to trust Christ rather than the things that they could see. (See 2 Corinthians 4:16-18)

If the Corinthians were trusting Christ in the way that Paul was outlining, then they would be pleasing God too. Pleasing God is about faith. Obedience is another matter. Obedience is the biblical response from a person who is trusting Christ.

Don’t you think it pleases God when you trust (faith) Him? And because you trust Him, you obey Him. The logic would flow like this:

1. I trust God.
2. God is pleased that I trust Him.
3. Because I trust Him, I obey Him.

Sandra needs to start over. She needs to understand what pleasing God means. It means to trust Him, which she is not doing. If she trusted Him she would not be trying to please Him. Contrariwise, she is trusting her works and if her works are satisfactory, according to her estimation, then God is pleased with her.

God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.

Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.

She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God. For Sandra this is amazingly huge. She is an insecure, people pleasing, co-dependent, performance-driven person.

Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.

Other than restating the previous point of what faith in sanctification is, this excerpt is pregnant with the Forum’s fusion of justification and sanctification, and the idea that any effort in sanctification by way of obedience is an attempt to participate in ones STANDING before God: “She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.” And again: “Sandra was relieved and encouraged to know that she did not have to please God to gain His good opinion. She began to understand that her standing before God was as secure today as it was when He first acted upon her.

Also notice the emphasis that any effort in sanctification is an attempt to be MORE  IN CHRSIT which is a justification/salvation concern:

God has a good opinion of her if she is trusting His Son for salvation. This truth must be inculcated into her brain. Because she is a Christian she is in Christ and she cannot be any more in Christ.

Being more obedient does not make her more in Christ. When she was regenerated God was pleased with her and His pleasure in her does not ebb and flow.

She must guard her heart from the subtle deception that what she does through obedience can merit a better standing before God.

Regarding what Thomas says about obedience—this is disingenuous; obviously, if we cannot please God as he plainly states prior to this, it is obviously not our obedience. Remember, he quotes Isaiah 64:6 to make that point, which by the way is a verse that concerns justification. But if not our obedience, whose obedience is it? He says right in the same post: “Rather than accepting what is pleasing to God–the works of the Son, she tries to please Him by her obedience.”

How Thomas thinks Sandra should read her Bible is also evident towards the end of the post and aligns with the whole idea of using the Bible as a tool for gospel contemplationism:

For the first time in Sandra’s life she was beginning to make Gospel-connections to her practical life. She was understanding that the Gospel was not just for salvation (Justification), but the Gospel was the power she needed to live for Christ (Sanctification).

Today, she reads her Bible with a new pair of glasses as she recently said. Sometimes she gets frustrated when she thinks of all the years of cross-less Bible reading and cross-less living, but she quickly recovers by reorienting her heart back to the finished work of Christ. Sandra is free in Christ!

My last comment is for Sandra. Sandra, don’t count your chickens before they are hatched. Thomas has led you to believe that justification and sanctification are the same thing. You must continually (as the Forum stated it)  “offer the perfect works of Christ to the Father by faith” so that the works of Christ can maintain your just standing before God.  But that’s still works salvation. It’s working at maintaining your justification by doing nothing. Did Thomas not state in this post:

Warning: If you are not daily affected by Christ’s finished work on the cross you can subtly slip into an obedience lifestyle thinking that what you do pleases God as though there is some kind of merit you can achieve through your obedience.

And because justification and sanctification are fused, that merit would have to be for justification purposes. Slipping back into an “obedience lifestyle” circumvents the “finished works of Christ” that powers your sanctification. Gee Sandra, how often can this happen before you lose your salvation? Once? Twice? Are you maintaining your justification by faith alone? How many times are you allowed to offer your own faithless works instead of the works of Christ by faith? Are you actually in a works salvation by faith alone? When you are in a situation that requires obedience as a duty, will that cost you your salvation?

Maybe you better give Rick a call and ask him. I would actually like to know the answer to that myself.

paul

John MacArthur Was Against Reckless Faith Before He Was For It

The Father of John Kerry theology continues to rack up the contradictions as his legacy wanes. To whom much is given, much is required, and MacArthur has already sold truth for a bowl of New Calvinist fame. At the upcoming 2012 Resolved Conference, he will take his place with the other gods of New Calvinism under the high-tech light show and above a sea of worshippers who can wave arms with the best of them.

He must be there, he can’t help himself, even though he will appear on stage with CJ Mahaney who represents what MacArthur used to call “Chaos” in the Christian life. But now MacArthur has seen the lights; things that used to cause chaos in the Christian life are now “secondary issues” because Mahaney majors on the doctrine contrived by a Seventh-day Adventist who is now an atheist: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. But what of MacArthur’s supposed conviction that elders should be above reproach in light of Mahaney’s serial abuse of power? Answer: as Dever and Mohler insinuate; collateral damage is to be expected when you are on the cutting edge of a new Reformation that is the rediscovery of the “scandalous gospel.” No, no, there is really no scandal at SGM, the only scandal is Mahaney’s martyrdom for the scandalous gospel.

MacArthur has always had discernment issues. In the 80’s, disciples of the heretical Larry Crabb were running his counseling program at Grace Community Church while he arrogantly dismissed concerns from those who lacked titles after their names. This despite Crabb’s horrendous dissing of Scripture in the book “Outside In” which on one page compared Bible reading to masturbation. MacArthur’s lack of discernment can also be seen in his understudies who continually praise and swoon over brazen antinomian John Piper on the Pyromaniacs blog. The primary author of the blog, Phil Johnson, once stated, “I love John Piper,” and noted that Piper was only preceded by MacArthur in regard to whom he read most. Another contributor to the blog, the insufferable Frank Turk, stated, “To know Piper is to understand Piper.” This is the disgusting New Calvinist mentality that you are obligated to read everything a New Calvinist has ever written in order to be qualified to judge their doctrine.

I have already noted the contradictions in New Calvinist teachings and the MacArthur book, Saved Without a Doubt here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-NH. The book was recently republished and it is the only book written by him that I would now recommend to anybody. My review of Slave is here http://wp.me/pmd7S-sD, and though this book is an excellent insight into the use of slave terminology in the Bible, the book lacked the usual practical application to kingdom living which has been a hallmark of his writings in the past while bolstering the credibility of various New Calvinists. Then there was The Truth War which bemoaned the Postmodern approach to Scripture (http://wp.me/pmd7S-1aY) while New Calvinism takes the exact same approach to the Bible.

This brings me to MacArthur’s book, Reckless Faith, which bemoans neo-orthodoxy. Here is MacArthur’s definition of neo-orthodoxy from pages 25-29):

Neo-orthodoxy is the term used to identify an existentialist variety of Christianity. Because it denies the essential objective basis of truth—the absolute truth and authority of Scripture—neo-orthodoxy must be understood as pseudo-Christianity. Its heyday came in the middle of the twentieth century with the writings of Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Paul Tillich, and Reinhold Niebaur. Those men echoed the language and the thinking of [Soren] Kierkegaard, speaking of the primacy of “personal authenticity,” while downplaying or denying the significance of objective truth. Barth, the father of neo-orthodoxy, explicitly acknowledged his debt to Kierkegaard.

Neo-orthodoxy’s attitude toward Scripture is a microcosm of the entire existentialist philosophy: the Bible itself is not objectively the Word of God, but it becomes the Word of God when it speaks to me individually. In neo-orthodoxy, that same subjectivism is imposed on all the doctrines of historic Christianity. Familiar terms are used, but are redefined or employed in such a way that is purposely vague—not to convey objective meaning, but to communicate a subjective symbolism. After all, any “truth” theological terms convey is unique to the person who exercises faith. What the Bible means becomes unimportant, What it means to me is the relevant issue. All of this resoundingly echoes Kierkegaard’s concept of “truth that is true for me.”

Thus while neo-orthodox theologians often sound as if they affirming traditional beliefs, their actual system differs radically from the historic understanding of the Christian faith. By denying the objectivity of truth, they relegate all theology to the realm of subjective relativism. It is a theology perfectly suited for the age in which we live. And that is precisely why it is so deadly…

Only problem is, a method of interpreting the Bible that likewise has an orthodox sound to it, Biblical Theology (the theme of the 2011 The Gospel Coalition Conference), is awash in neo-orthodoxy. Biblical Theology is the staple hermeneutic of New Calvinism. As stated in The Truth About New Calvinism on page 23:

The Biblical-Theological movement originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writing of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753–1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against an overly dogmatic reading of it.

Nearly a century later, Princeton Theological Seminary inaugurated its first professor of Biblical Theology, Geerhardus Vos (1862–1949). Vos was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a more conservative direction, using it to vindicate the Reformed faith and historic Christianity over against theological liberalism.

Many consider Graeme Goldsworthy, one of the primary figures behind the Australian Forum which contrived New Calvinism’s core doctrine (the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us) to be the contemporary torchbearer for Vos. His magnum opus, The Goldsworthy Trilogy, is a staple resource among New Calvinists. But Biblical Theology’s long history is fraught with instances of being integrated with neo-orthodoxy. Modernism /Neo-orthodoxy was a massive European movement that opened the floodgates of liberalism and Christian mysticism. The brunt of the movement found its moorings in Germany. Its most intensive affront to churches in the US came during the sixties and was aided by neo-evangelicalism which advocated tolerance and anti-separation). According to Charles Woodbridge, Fuller Seminary was a major proponent for tolerance in regard to Modernism and neo-orthodoxy in, or about 1968 (Charles Woodbridge: The New Evangelicalism, p.23). John Piper graduated from Fuller in 1971, and in that same year went to the University of Munich, Germany to study under Leonhard Goppelt (Wikipedia), a liberal theologian under the category of Modernism (HT Spence: Crucial Truths for Crucial Days, Volume Three, p. 143).

An article by Gary Dorrien published by Return to Religion Online in lieu of his book, The Word as Truth Myth: Interpreting Modern Theology outlines the connection between Modernism/neo-evangelism and the BTM: Biblical Theology Movement. According to Dorrien:

No theological perspective has a commanding place or an especially impressive following these days. Various theologies compete for attention in a highly pluralized field, and no theology has made much of a public impact. One significant and inescapable development, however, has been the emergence of “postliberal” theology, a major attempt to revive the neo-orthodox ideal of a “third way” in theology.

For nearly as long as modern theology has existed, efforts have been made to locate a third way between conservatism and liberalism. The idea of a third way was intrinsic to mid-19th-century German “mediating theology,” which blended confessional, pietistic and liberal elements. Two generations later, neo-orthodoxy issued a more aggressive appeal for a third way. While insisting that he was not tempted by biblical literalism, Karl Barth began his dogmatics by describing the liberal tradition of Friedrich Schleiermacher and Adolf von Harnack as “the plain destruction of Protestant theology and the Protestant church.” Emil Brunner’s “theology of crisis” similarly maintained that in different ways Protestant liberal-ism and Protestant orthodoxy both betrayed the Reformation principles of the sovereignty and freedom of the Word of God. Reinhold Niebuhr took a different tack toward a similar end, arguing that fundamentalism was hopelessly wrong because it took Christian myths literally, while liberal Christianity was hopelessly wrong because it failed to take Christian myths seriously [emphasis mine].

Neo-orthodoxy was an umbrella term for various profoundly different theologies. It was embraced in the U.S. by thousands of pastors and theologians, who generally got their theology from Brunner and Niebuhr rather than from Barth. American neo-orthodoxy in the 1940s and 1950s typically meant a compound of Brunner’s dogmatics, Niebuhr’s theological ethics, and the scripture scholarship of the biblical theology movement [emphasis mine]. This movement, a reaction to the perceived sterility of earlier, purely analytic studies, emphasized the unifying themes of scripture and stressed the revelatory acts of God in history as described in the Bible.

Bottom line: The myth is truth. The BTM satisfied liberals in that dogmatic propositional truth is not the point, and satisfied conservatives by saying that Bible narratives relate factual truth. In essence, the same way a parable may be a true story or it may not be—that’s not the point, the point is the truth that it conveys. BTM supplied a third way between Modernism and Fundamentalism. Another source that speaks of neo-orthodoxy as being synonymous with BTM is Out of Egypt by Craig G. Bartholomew and Elaine Botha, particularly on page 4. Both sources say that apologists James Barr and Langdon Gilkey dealt BTM and neo-evangelism a death blow in 1961 through their writings.

Though further study is needed, it would appear that Biblical Theology, ie., Redemptive Historical hermeneutics or Christocentric hermeneutics, made a comeback when mixed with the Forums centrality of the objective gospel outside of us in 1970.

For more than two centuries, Modernism and neo-orthodoxy has written Christian recipes for every kind of  mysticism, spiritual contemplationism, and philosophy known to man. And Biblical Theology unites all of them because supposedly, the myth is literal truth. Did the historical events in the Bible actually happen? Are the events to be interpreted literally? That’s not relevant; what is relevant is the truth about the gospel that it conveys to the individual. Ironically, MacArthur continued to bemoan the following effects of neo-orthodoxy in the aforementioned book:

[Contemplative Spirituality aka] Mysticism is perfectly suited for religious existentialism; indeed, it is the inevitable consequence. The mystic disdains rational understanding and seeks truth instead through the feelings, the imagination, personal visions, inner voices, private illumination, of other purely subjective means. Objective truth becomes practically superfluous.

Mystical experiences are therefore self-authenticating; that is, they are not subject to any form of objective verification. They are unique to the person who experiences them. Since they do not arise from or depend upon any rational process, they are invulnerable to any refutation by rational means… Mysticism is therefore antithetical to discernment. It is an extreme form of reckless faith. Mysticism is the great melting pot into which neo-orthodoxy, the charismatic movement, anti-intellectual evangelicals, and even some segments of Roman Catholicism have been synthesized.

It has produced movements like the Third Wave (a neo-charismatic movement with excessive emphasis on signs, wonders and personal prophesies); Renovaré (an organization that blends teachings from monasticism, ancient [Roman] Catholic mysticism, Eastern Religion, and other mystical traditions); the spiritual warfare movement (which seeks to engage demonic powers in direct confrontation); and the modern prophesy movement (which encourages believers to seek private, extrabiblical revelation directly from God).

The influx of mysticism has also opened evangelicalism to New-Age concepts like subliminal thought-control, inner healing, communication with angels, channeling, dream analysis, positive confession, and a host of other therapies and practices coming directly from occult and Eastern religions. The face of evangelicalism has changed so dramatically in the past twenty years that what is called evangelicalism today is beginning to resemble what used to be called neo-orthodoxy. If anything, some segments of contemporary evangelicalism are even more subjective in their approach to truth than neo-orthodoxy ever was.

Somehow, MacArthur sees no correlation between spiritual contemplationism born of neo-orthodoxy and gospel contemplationism which is a hallmark of New Calvinism. The rest of what he describes in the above lengthy excerpt is woefully prevalent throughout the New Calvinism movement, especially the kind of mysticism propagated by one of the forefathers of New Calvinism, Tim Keller.

Though MacArthur shows no tolerance for those who deny a literal six days of creation in the book Think Biblically, writing that it undermines the gospel, he heaps praises on John Piper who stops short of confessing such, and admits that such a belief is not a requirement for eldership at his church ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-1b2 ). But this makes sense because in Piper’s mind, whether God created the earth in a literal six-day period is not the point; what that passage conveys about the gospel is the point. But in this approach of myth as literal truth, torturing such verses until they scream “gospel” is doomed to produce all kinds of subjective versions of the gospel. The prism may be objective: all verses are about the gospel, but how the creation event is interpreted as gospel will produce as many different results as those who interpret.

All of this is an astounding display of confused hypocrisy.

paul

John Piper Stops Short of Confirming 6-Day Creation and “Sympathetic” Towards Theistic Evolution

 

New Calvinism’s Kinship to Postmodernism and the Emergent Church

 

New Calvinism’s Kinship to Postmodernism and the Emergent Church

 

New Calvinism is Totally Debunked by 2Peter 1:1-15

2 Peter 1:1-14 contradicts almost all of the major tenets of New Calvinism: Christocentric salvation; Christocentric interpretation; double imputation; Christocentric sanctification; the total depravity of the saints; sanctification by faith alone; the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event; assurance based on gospel contemplationism; sanctification is not “in our OWN efforts”; the apostolic gospel.

Christocentric Salvation

Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (v1).

Salvation is not Christocentric. Peter states that we obtained our faith by God the Father AND Jesus Christ.

Christocentric Interpretation

 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord (v2).

The benefits of salvation are multiplied by the knowledge  of  both the Father and the Son. Of course, this knowledge can only come from the Scriptures. Obviously, knowledge of both is required for the multiplication of grace and peace. One may also note that when Peter restates this truth in verse 3, he only mentions the one “who called us” which of course is God the Father.

Double Imputation

 “The imputed righteousness of Christ” is an often heard slogan among New Calvinists. But it is the righteousness of God that was imputed to us by believing in Christ (see v1). God’s imputed righteousness is sufficient—Christ lived a perfect life as a man because of who He is, not for the purpose of imputing obedience to us as part of the atonement in sanctification.

Christocentric Sanctification

 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence (v3).

Again, God the Father is the member of the Trinity who called us. Knowledge pertaining to the Father is efficacious in sanctification.

The Total Depravity of the Saints

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire (v3,4).

“Partakers” is: koinōnos from koinos; a sharer, that is, associate: – companion, fellowship, partaker, partner. Koinos means: common, that is, (literally) shared by all or several and is derived from a primary preposition denoting union; with or together, that is, by association, companionship, process, resemblance, possession, instrumentality, addition, etc.: – beside, with. In compounds it has similar applications, including completeness.

Sanctification by Faith Alone

For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love (v 5,6,7).

Obviously, if sanctification is by faith alone, Peter wouldn’t tell us to ADD anything to it.

The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event

For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (v8,9,10,11).

Glorification (and one could argue assurance as well) is an indicative act, but in these verses, it is contingent and preceded by imperatives. Peter uses the conjunction “if” three times to conjoin imperatives preceding the indicative.

Assurance Based on Gospel Contemplationism

One of the more hideous teachings of New Calvinism is that guilt is indicative of not understanding grace. Therefore, saints will not be told to take biblically prescribed action to relieve guilt, but will be told to further contemplate the gospel. There is barely anything more powerful in the Christian life than full assurance of salvation and Peter tells us in no uncertain terms how to obtain it: aggressively adding certain things to our faith.

Sanctification is not “in our OWN efforts.”

New Calvinism, by default, disavows our effort in sanctification by continually utilizing the either/or hermeneutic: it’s either all our effort, or all of Christ. Though we can do nothing without Christ, Peter makes it clear that peace and assurance will not take place if we do not “make every effort” (ESV).

The Apostolic Gospel

So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. 13 I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, 14 because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things (v12,13,14,15).

Think about it. It had been revealed to Peter that his departure was near, so his ministry was focused on what he thought was the most important thing that they needed to be continually reminded of. Where is, “The same gospel that saves us sanctifies us”? Where is, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”? Where is, “Beholding the face of Christ as a way of becoming”?

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church, Part 23: Jean’s Family Tree

Updated Genealogy Chart Based on the “Shaking of Adventism”

God, the Gospel & Tim Tebow

 

God, the Gospel & Tim Tebow.

Belated Thoughts On Christmas: “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas”

December 1, 2011

I’m full of anticipation.  Today is the day that we will clean the house and I will begin to put up the Christmas decorations. Please take note of the two pronouns we and I in the previously written sentence.   Originally, the anticipation was just me, myself, and I. In our new home, it appears that I am singular in feeling absolutely juvenile and crazy about Christmas.  Not store bought Christmas, but my way of celebrating Christmas. What a surprise when Paul woke me up early with coffee and announced: “After the house is cleaned, I’ll help you with the decorations.” Shut my mouth and call me speechless!

In my first marriage to Wayne, we had Christmas secrets, allowed Christmas lies, Christmas hiding places, and Christmas traditions were brought from our two families, as well as many we created ourselves. Some rules about Christmas were made up on the spot, but there were two rules that never changed:  Christmas doesn’t happen until the house is clean, and if you find the Christmas hiding places and see your presents before Christmas Day, you cannot play with them until January 25^th.  My three boys who are now 24, 21, and 15 had great joy telling Paul’s son how they worked the whole Christmas scenario. You find the hiding places but keep your mouth shut.  Then on Christmas Day you give an Oscar winning performance to Mom and Dad expressing extreme happiness and surprise.

House cleaning ended up being just the living room where the Christmas presents were located.  How they cleaned their own rooms is a story in itself.   One Christmas, I worked so hard at finding Christmas hiding places I forgot where I hid the stocking stuffers. I came across them accidentally a few months later.  They became Easter basket surprises.

The one tradition I particularly love and will keep on doing until the day I die, or the Lord returns, is the selecting of Christmas ornaments.  Every year I find a Christmas ornament for each family member that reflects a special accomplishment, event, or quirky thing that happened that year.  For example, one year Ben was fascinated with wolves. I made curtains for his bedroom from a wolf print fabric. He had wolf wall paper, and had “adopted” a wolf and had its poster on the wall of his room.  A beautiful Belgian handcrafted wolf head ornament was found at an out of the way shop in Beavercreek. Every year we find that special spot on the tree for the wolf and repeat the many funny and sentimental stories about Ben’s love for wolves.  It was my oldest son, Tim’s delight to ask for his ornaments last Christmas to decorate the first tree he and his new bride would have.  I have to say, there were so many ornaments they may have to get a bigger tree in the future.   (I have their special ornament for this year ready to be wrapped.)

So, in the midst of the yawns and “here we go again” comments, what’s all of this hoop-la about, any way?  Well, friends it’s about remembering and anticipation, two very biblical concepts.  In the Old Testament when a significant event happened, a memorial was erected. The feasts and special days were established as memorials, remembering what God had done, and also as anticipatory celebrations, looking forward to what God was going to do for the nation of Israel.  The animal sacrifice requirements were set into practice in order to help His people remember their sinfulness, their total dependency upon Jehovah, and to create an anticipation for the coming Messiah/Redeemer.

My way of celebrating Christmas can be compared to the celebrating of the feasts and memorials in the Old Testament—remembering and anticipation.  As the ornaments are hung years of memories unfold.  Not all of the memories are happy ones. There are sad and lonely memories, hopeful as well as hopeless ones.  But it causes me to remember His faithfulness throughout the years. It fills my heart with anticipation. I look ahead to what He is going to do for us tomorrow and throughout this coming year. I anticipate His blessings and His return.  The ornaments I hang and decorations I arrange are my memorials of remembrance and anticipation. I hope your Christmas will be a truly memorable one and the New Year is full of anticipation for you and your family!  susan

Post Script:

It’s Beginning to Still Look a Lot Like Christmas!

January 12, 2012

Here it is almost the middle of January and all of our Christmas decorations are still up! Paul wants me to keep them up until at least February.  He claims that he is going to make plans for elaborate outdoor decorations for next year! What a change from when were still dating during Christmas last year and I couldn’t get any help or enthusiasm about the holidays. I really don’t mind the decorations still being up, but elaborate outdoor decorations are up for lots of negotiation.    

susan

According to New Calvinist Jean Larroux, This is What Christians Are:

This is who you are:

And this is the song that you sing:

I was searching for something I could not describe

So I stared at the sun till the tears filled my eyes

Well I thought I was empty so I paid the cost

But now that I’m found I miss being lost

I opened my heart and I let Jesus in

With the promise that I would be free of my sins

But I only felt guilty that he died on the cross

Now that I’m found I miss being lost

I don’t wanna suffer and I don’t wanna die

I want the clouds parted in an endless, blue sky

But someone up there has a different plan

Now that I’m saved I wish I was damned

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church, Part 22: Movies, Songs, Stories, and Denial of the New Birth

“Hence, because we are supposedly just as wicked as we were before the salvation that is completely outside of us, we can only dance with Jesus or Clem Snide…. dancing to the desire for damnation and an escape from being saved. I am incredulous that intelligent people who name the name of Christ allow this man to stand behind the sacred desk under their roof of worship.” 

On January 8, JL3 continued his series on “Scandalous Obedience.”  I look forward to the privilege of critiquing tomorrow’s message as well. Is that the one where a visitor is going to come and lie about how mission works flow from the unfinished work of justification? I’m not sure.

Regarding the January 8 message on Romans 6:15-23, the text is not exegeted. The message is a constant string of movies, stories, songs, and one TV show from beginning to end. And biblical concepts are reframed to produce desired outcomes. For example, “obedience” which is rarely, if ever used with a modifier in the Scriptures, is now “Scandalous Obedience.”  What’s that? That’s obedience that flows from contemplating “grace” and is supposedly soooooooo much more radical than what the Bible would tell us to do subjectively via pesky imperatives. Like the sultans of New Covenant Theology constantly say: “You just can’t leap from the command to obedience.” If you let obedience be a “mere natural flow” from learning about grace in the Scriptures—your obedience will be a “Crazy Love” directly from the heart of Jesus and not the “dead letters of the law.”

No, no, we can’t have such leaping. As JL3 states in this message, obedience “flows” from focusing on “grace,” and, don’t miss this: JL3 is not called to “give you exact marching orders” in regard to what your “love” (radical obedience) “looks like.” We can only watch to see what happens after we use the Scriptures to “hear the voice of Jesus,” and “connect to His heart.” Jesus’ straightforward approach in the Sermon on the Mount of hearing the word, learning the word, and applying the word is replaced with, “hearing the voice of Jesus,” “connecting to Jesus’ heart,” and as pontificated constantly throughout the message; obedience is reframed as “dancing with Jesus.”

JL3 makes it clear in this message—there are only two kinds of dancing that Southwood parishioners can do: dancing with Jesus (his version of biblical obedience), or dancing according to who we really are as Christians. He uses the lyrics from the following song to illustrate who we are as Christians:

I was searching for something I could not describe

So I stared at the sun till the tears filled my eyes

Well I thought I was empty so I paid the cost

But now that I’m found I miss being lost

I opened my heart and I let Jesus in

With the promise that I would be free of my sins

But I only felt guilty that he died on the cross

Now that I’m found I miss being lost

I don’t wanna suffer and I don’t wanna die

I want the clouds parted in an endless, blue sky

But someone up there has a different plan

Now that I’m saved I wish I was damned

JL3 makes it clear after citing these lyrics from the song Jews for Jesus Blues by Clem Snide that this is the theology that we Christians dance to. He also said that his stories cited in this same message are further evidence of “how twisted and sick our hearts are.” Hence, because we are supposedly just as wicked as we were before the salvation that is completely outside of us, we can only dance with Jesus or Clem Snide. And how do we dance with Jesus? According to JL3: “Grace is the name on your dance card.” In other words, obedience by grace alone. The only other alternative is dancing to the tune of who we really are with the name of Clem Snide on our dance card—dancing to the desire for damnation and an escape from being saved. I am incredulous that intelligent people who name the name of Christ allow this man to stand behind the sacred desk under their roof of worship.

In an unbelievably lame attempt to manipulate the congregation, JL3 defends what he is teaching in this “sermon”; supposedly from the text, as NOT being legalism! It is clear that he thinks this congregation is all but completely brain-dead, or sees himself as intellectually superior, or both.

In the same way that he did in the first message, JL3 preys on the normative experience of most Christians in our American culture: attempting to do the right thing the wrong way, ie., stupid obedience verses intelligent obedience. JL3, in this message and many others, often refers to the Christian experience of continually falling into the same patterns of sin. Ie., stupid obedience. Of course, JL3’s ungodly teachings foster this experience further, and then enables him to use it as a citation for proof to further his evil agenda.

Not surprisingly, JL3 closed with another story. I am not going to rehearse the story, but it is a typical New Calvinist motif:

Oh well, we are all vile sinners saved by grace. You mean you won’t forgive your Christian wife for plotting to have you murdered for insurance money? Oh my! You must not understand grace and how much you have been forgiven. If you did, you would say, “I’m glad my wife tried to have me murdered; it reminds me that I would do the same thing if there was a life insurance policy on her.” No wonder you expect your elders to be perfect and object to us teaching antinomianism!

JL3 also closed with yet another either/or prism: either grace, or guilt. This goes along with New Calvinist tenet of the total depravity of the saints . We should reject guilt; grace is the answer. This is indicative of the severe danger this doctrine poses for Christians. The Bible continually presents guilt as a valuable tool in sanctification and a motivator to take objective action as a result. The cure for guilt is corrective action and a biblically trained mind, not “preaching the gospel to ourselves until we understand grace enough to vanquish guilt.” Dangerously, many New Calvinists teach that guilt is proof of a lack of understanding in regard to grace. Supposedly, if we truly understand the depths of God’s grace and the power of His forgiveness, we should never feel guilty. Guilt is a result of “living by lists,” etc.  I cannot even begin to articulate how dangerous this teaching is.

This is my prayer: “Oh God, deliver the church from this evil anti-word (Romans 6:19) doctrine.”

paul

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church, Part 21: Let’s Pretend; JL3 Believes in Obedience

Sure he does. “Scandalous obedience” that is. Put your hand on your spiritual wallet. JL3 is not about to settle for the customary obedience of the forefathers, the New Calvinists have something better: high octane obedience because Jesus obeys for us. Throughout the message I suffered through this morning preached on January 1 at Southwood, JL3 frames obedience as something that we watch ourselves do as spectators, and “dancing with Jesus.” Why is obedience “scandalous”? Isn’t that an oxymoron in the way of John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism”? I can answer that, and don’t miss the crux of the matter: it’s “scandalous” because it is obedience apart from the law. That’s the rub. Hence, JL3 reminds us throughout the message that scandalous obedience is “BECAUSE of scandalous grace, not the BALANCE of the two.” Straw man alert. Christians don’t attempt to balance obedience with grace—that’s impossible, grace (used in context of justification) is a finished work and separate from obedience in sanctification.

The message is the same old New Calvinist manifesto throughout. Instead of  following the text, JL3 set up an interpretive prism from which he exegetes the text (Romans 6:1-14). Through the use of compelling stories and spiritual sounding platitudes, the prism is either prison or Jesus, sin or Jesus, and either scandalous obedience that comes from scandalous grace or non-scandalous obedience that DOES NOT come from scandalous grace. If one listens very carefully, the prism JL3 sets up makes prison, sin, and liberty synonymous with law, and in contrast to Jesus/grace. In other words, though subtle, he sets up a distinct dichotomy between Christ and the law.

In fact, he completes the sermon with a story about a girl who turned her back on the faith because she wasn’t willing to accept radical, scandalous obedience that flows from scandalous grace which might have called her to do things she wasn’t willing to do.  Instead, she wanted an obedience that she could control, ie., a list of rules that is a balance to scandalous grace. JL3’s point to this story is clear: living by “checking off the boxes” of  a to-do list rather than letting scandalous obedience flow from scandalous grace in sanctification will cost you your very soul. Supposedly, when this girl realized this, for the first time in her life she understood the gospel well enough to reject it. This part of the message was definitely fear factor 101 and indicative of what I am constantly complaining  about—the cultish techniques employed by New Calvinists to control people. Bottom line: you either become a New Calvinist, or you are going to hell.

In his introduction, he touts this new series on scandalous obedience as being for the purpose of seeing “what it looks like to respond to the grace of God.” His opening prayer asked that we would see more of Jesus’ holiness in the Bible (while insinuating that we have none), and more of Jesus’ holiness in ourselves and others, resulting in us being “shaped” by Jesus. In both of his introductory stories about two men who sought to be put back in prison, JL3 states that Christians are just like these two men, we “share a human nature that loves sin.” This is nothing more than the New Calvinist doctrine of the objective gospel completely outside of us. God’s grace is not internalized in the believer via the new birth (therefore, we are barley any different from the unregenerate), and all of God’s holiness remains outside of us. When we contemplate the objective  gospel outside of us, it results in manifestations of sanctification that have already been secured for us in the atonement, especially obedience to the law. Moreover, JL3 used the stories in his sermon to inform the congregation of what they are asking, fearing, loving, and what they should say amen to. It’s downright creepy.

Another tenet of New Calvinism that was in this message, though very subtle, was the New Covenant Theology concept of the higher law of love which supposedly replaced the written law of God since Christ (supposedly) came to abolish it. Supposedly, since we are free from the law, we are free to love. According to my notes, at one point, JL3 asked the congregation, “Southwood, are you free to love?” Again, according to my notes, JL3 states, “A true Christian is not in bondage to his liberty, but is free to love his brother.” Liberty from what? The law. JL3 plainly states that at the end of the message and uses Romans 6:14 for a proof text. Basically, this advocates a subjective standard of love based on results of contemplating the works of Christ/gospel, which includes the fulfillment of the law for us in sanctification. Specific imperatives in the Bible are indicative of what Christ fulfilled for us as part of the atonement and should invoke thanksgiving, not a list of rules to obey. As Francis Chan said in Crazy Love, “When you are loving, it is impossible to sin.”

JL3 asked repeatedly during the message: “Is the resurrection showing up in your life?” The obvious implication was that there is only one way that resurrection power will start “showing up” in our lives, “Gospel preaching.” Throughout the message JL3 insulted the intelligence of the congregation by implying that all of what he taught in this message was proof that he is a big obedience guy. But who’s obedience? Certainly not ours. And by what standard? Certainly not the law. Like all New Calvinists, JL3 interprets Romans 6:14 in context of sanctification to make this point, but that verse is clearly referring to those who are under the dominion of sin and will be judged by the law. The New Calvinist lie that we are sanctified by justification will not stand.

Paul

Do Christians Really Have a Clue? I’m Just Asking!

Notice: it is not, I repeat, NOT the goal of this post to criticize the following brother for what he posted on Facebook. I’m just posing a question. Is that ok?

Nevertheless, here is the post:

“At the beginning of last year, I set up 30 chairs in our youth room and started praying that God would bring in the young people that were supposed to be a part of Dunamis Youth. I told our 10 faithful youth to start praying for God to fill the seats. Tonight, at 7:10, a young man, who came late because of basketball practice came in and sat down in the last empty seat!! Praise God, I’m gonna go set up more seats!”

Per the usual, because it sounds good (the modern-day Good Churchkeeping seal of approval), the following comments ensued preceded by revealed forethought demonstrated by their length:

huge PRAISE! great job!

God is good

Awesome! I hope you have so many you have to build a new building! Keep doing what your doing man.

WTG Matt!!

Woohoo!!!

That gave me chills!!!! That is awesome!!!!

Praise God!

I think us “dancers” may have to find more room and a new spot to stand at(: haha

WONDERFUL!!!

That is wonderful!!!

That is just AWESOME Matt!! GOD IS GREAT!!

Good thing Matt! More empty seats & more prayers! God is good!

Matt!! Here is YOUR Word for the day!! (Maybe, really, for the rest f your life!) 1 Cor. 1:6!!!

thats wonderful MAtt! when do you meet?

The jury of fourteen is in with their judgment (sorry about slipping with the no-no word) verdict: “God did it.”  Oh really? How do we know that? Why exactly would God send them? Is it God who fills the 25,000 seat auditorium at Joel Osteen’s church? Some say “yes,” others would say “no.” How do we know? Do we know positively that God filled those chairs? And if He didn’t, is it alright to make such assumptions because they’re feel-good assumptions? Does positive + feel-good = truth?

Ok, let’s assume God sent them. Why would he? I didn’t ask the brother why he thought God would; he may have a very good reason, but the first part of this story is far too indicative of our church culture:

Q: Why would God send them?

A: Like, because of the gospel dude.

Q: What’s the gospel?

A: Like, you know, what Jesus did for us man.

Q: So, is that all you are going to teach?

A: Duuuuude, of course not!

Q: So what are you going to teach?

A: Dude, I have it all planned out. We are going to start by teaching through “Crazy

Love” written by the Chanster.

Q: Then what?

A: Dunno dude, depends on the next biggest gig to come out man.

All too often, church strategy can be summed up by one goal: get more people here to talk about Jesus. And that usually entails talking about what other people say about Jesus, not anything derived from deep study by local church leaders.

In fact, “strategy” sounds really unspiritual, no? That could be why most local churches really don’t have a clue as to why they are here and what they are doing. But it’s not complicated. Christ’s mandate to the church is not, “get people saved.” His mandate to the church is “make disciples.” Christ doesn’t want a bunch of saved people—He wants disciples. Christ is savior. True. He is also Lord. Equally true. And the goal is to have disciples whose lives are “built on a rock” by “[hearing] these words of mine and [putting] them into practice.” That’s a biblical goal: teaching disciples how to put the full counsel of God into practice so we have lives built on a rock. Lives that also preach the gospel.  Biblical thinking, biblical praying, and biblical doing. All of God’s counsel, and ALL of God’s  people. Every moment of church life should be working towards doing that as much as possible. And I contend that it takes planning, good communication, and knowing why we are here and what we are doing.

Fill chairs. Sure. But why?

paul

Jean F. Larroux, III Preaching on Obedience? Well, That Depends on What the Definition of “Is” Is.

I figured I would stop by Southwood.org and see what my pals have been up to lately. I found that their “pastor,” Jean F. Larroux THE THIRD (hereafter, “JL3”) is preaching a series on obedience. Sigh. Oh well, somebody has to do it—I will start listening to the mp3’s tomorrow. Like I haven’t been down this road a hundred times. Let’s pretend: New Calvinists believe in obedience. Every time I do this I can’t help but to think of Clinton’s famous quote that called the definition of “is” into question during the Ken Starr hearings. I listened to a little bit of one mp3 to check on the sound quality, and it was excellent. But of course, if it wasn’t, somebody could be brought up on church discipline. What little bit I heard didn’t surprise me in the least; JL3 is going to teach us what obedience “looks like.”

paul

PPT Upcoming Series List

 

http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/upcoming-series/

The 2012 Top Five Most Dangerous Men in Christendom

 

The 2012 Top Five Most Dangerous Men in Christendom.

“Christless Christianity”: Michael Horton’s Lawless Trilogy

“Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.”

See no law, hear no law, speak no law. Such is “Christless Christianity,” published by Dr. Michael Horton in 2008. He presents the book as a treatise exposing the supposed fact that the church is awash in a “Christless” evangelicalism. After suffering through page after page of a nuanced semblance of orthodoxy masking his antinomian bent, his real thesis, and what drives his “Modern Reformation” organization, is stated on page 62.

See No Law

On page 62, he states the following:

“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”

Encompassed in this statement is Dr. Horton’s position on “faith,” “practice,” and how we “communicate” those things to the world. Let’s look at the “faith” part. First, he says that both the unregenerate and regenerate are dependent on the “free grace” of God disclosed in “the gospel” “at every moment.” He goes on to say that the gospel (ie., the free grace of justification) does two things: gives life to the spiritually dead (“unregenerate”) and “continually give[s] life to Christ’s flock” (ie., believers).

Secondly, believers only receive this life “every time WE encounter the gospel afresh.” Therefore, the relationship of the gospel to unbelievers and believers is no different. We are raised to life and progressively transformed in the exact same way. Horton says this happens at “every moment”; therefore, people are raised to life by the gospel (justification by faith alone) and transformed by the gospel (justification by faith alone), and only “each time” they encounter the gospel “afresh.”

Thirdly, what gospel gives life to the unregenerate? Well, Horton says plainly that if believers leave that same gospel, “you loose both.” Both what? Answer: sanctification and justification. Horton says you get “both” in the bargain because according to him they are both the same. In other words, what orthodox Christians normally consider to be sanctification, is really progressive justification. Ever heard of that? Didn’t think so. Does this mean Michael Horton believes that synergism in sanctification is a false gospel? Sure it does, what else can be surmised? Does this explain why he thinks he is on the cutting edge of a new reformation? I would imagine.

Fourthly, we also see another tenet of antinomian (see no law) doctrine (specifically, gospel sanctification) in this same excerpt: “….but the Spirit working through the gospel.” Note “but.” But what? The giving of life: “….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life….” In other words, the Spirit only works through the gospel. Therefore, the Scriptures are only used by the Spirit to impart life when the Bible is used in regard to showing forth justification, or the gospel. This is the redemptive-historical use of the Bible. Again, a gospel sanctification tenet. Hence, using the Bible for spiritual instruction is supposedly taboo, and in fact, law-keeping (as though that’s wrong for believers to do in the first place). Like many other proponents of antinomian doctrines, Horton’s teachings will contain a lot of very good what (descriptive information [which the Bible has in glorious abundance]), but rarely any how (prescriptive), and I contend to the detriment of many. They will have a glorious picture of heaven in their minds as they die on the vine, being hearers of the word (they would say gospel) only and not doers, “deceiving themselves.”

Fifthly, we see Horton’s mystical personification of Christ and the gospel in this part of the excerpt: “Start with Christ (that is, the gospel)….” Making the nebulous concept of the person of Christ synonymous with “the gospel,” and also paramount in interpretation rather than what Christ objectively instructs, serves antinomians well. Their writings are often peppered with this kind of subjective rhetoric, but it always has a purpose. An example is making “the gospel” synonymous with “the word” so they can say that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, and therefore serving that purpose only (progressive justification) for believers and unbelievers alike.

Lastly, If Horton, like the antinomian doctrine that he propagates, sees no difference in justification and sanctification, then the law will play the exact same role for believers as it does unbelievers. In fact, this is what Horton believes. However, the following excerpt from “Creeds and Deeds: How Doctrine Leads to Doxological Living” reveals how difficult it is to nail down Horton on this aspect:

“It might seem controversial to identify doctrine with ‘gospel’ and deeds with ‘law,’ especially since these days we often hear calls to ‘live the gospel.’ However, the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative; not a program to follow, but an announcement to welcome for our own salvation and to herald for the salvation of the world. Does that mean that we do not have imperatives or that we do not follow Christ? As Paul would say, ‘May it never be!’ It simply means that we have to distinguish indicatives and imperatives. The law gives us something to do, and the gospel gives us something to believe. Christians are no less obligated to obey God’s commandments in the New Testament than they were in the Old Testament, but they are commandments not promises. The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior, and then the imperatives become the ‘reasonable service’ of believers ‘in view of God’s mercies.’ There is a lot of wisdom to the order of the Heidelberg Catechism: Guilt, Grace, and Gratitude. The commandments tell us what we are to do; the gospel tells us what God has done.”

This excerpt reminds me of the John Kerry controversy during the 2004 presidential election: “I was for it before I was against it.” First, because of Horton’s progressive justification view, it is not possible for him to believe that the law has a role in sanctification anymore than it would in justification, other than a schoolmaster that leads us to Christ for justification. Though he makes statements above that seem to indicate that he believes the law has a role in the spiritual growth process, that’s not the case, it’s not logically possible when his positions are considered. Consequently, we can clearly see the statements that match progressive justification: “The imperatives drive us to despair of self-righteousness, the indicatives hold up Christ as our only Savior….” The law shows unbelievers their need for Christ, but please note that the Scriptures never tell us that God’s commands / imperatives drive Christians to despair; the extreme opposite is true. In fact,  Christians are promised blessings for applying God’s word to their life (James 1:25).

In addition, Horton makes it clear in the first excerpt that the Holy Spirit only imparts life “through the gospel”(“….nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel”) ; then, he says in the second excerpt that “…. the gospel is not an imperative but an indicative [indicative: indicative of God's work, not ours]….” But throughout Scripture, we see clearly that in fact, the Holy Spirit does use imperatives to impart life.  Examples such as Matthew 4:4 and John 17:17 (see endnote number 3) are abundant throughout the whole Bible. Another glaring contradiction to Scripture is Horton’s suggestion in the second excerpt that commands “are not promises.”

Michael Horton’s gospel is a no-Lordship, antinomian gospel because obeying biblical commands is synonymous with works justification. Furthermore, he believes that biblical commands are indicative of God’s work, not ours. I delve into the subject of imperatives / indicatives in two other essays in this same section.

Hear No law

How does all of this effect corporate worship? Supposedly, we are not to see any law in our progressive justification, but what about when we come together to worship? Should we then hear the law? Michael Horton says the following on pages 189 -191:

“ God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven. As this gospel creates, deepens, and inflames faith, a profound sense of praise and thanksgiving fills hearts, leading to good works among the saints and in the world throughout the week. Having been served by God in the public assembly, the people are then servants of each other and their neighbors in the world.”

As in the process of spiritual growth, corporate worship focuses totally on the gospel. Notice that Horton refers to believers as a “valley of dry bones” who have come to be made alive by the Spirit’s work through the gospel. This is another tenet of the neo-antinomianism of our day, the total depravity of the saints. In a contrasting scenario (or how not to have corporate worship) on page 191, Horton adds the following: “The expectation that God was actually visiting his people to apply the benefits of Christ’s victory to sinners – both believers and unbelievers – was less obvious than the sense that we were primarily regrouping to get our marching orders.” Note that believers are called “sinners,” and also note the construction of the sentence which would indicate that believers and unbelievers are the same kind of sinners who both gather together for the same purpose, the gospel.

Speak no Law

Regarding evangelism, the following excerpt is taken from pages 117-119 of “Christless Christianity.” This is a long excerpt, but necessary:

“The question for us all is whether we believe the church is the place where the gospel is regularly proclaimed and ratified to Christians as well as non-Christians. Like many Emergent Church leaders, Kimball invokes a famous line from Francis of Assisi that I also heard growing up in conservative evangelicalism: “Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words.” Kimball goes on to say, “Our lives will preach better than anything we can say. “12 (We encountered a nearly identical statement from Osteen in the previous chapter.) If so, then this is just more bad news, not only because of the statistics we have already seen, which evidence no real difference between Christians and non- Christians, but because despite my best intentions, I am not an exemplary creature. The best examples and instructions—even the best doctrines—will not relieve me of the battle with indwelling sin until I draw my last breath. Find me on my best day— especially if you have access to my hidden motives, thoughts, and attitudes—and I will always provide fodder for the hypocrisy charge and will let down those who would become Christians because they think I and my fellow Christians are the gospel. I am a Christian not because I think that I can walk in Jesus’s footsteps but because he is the only one who can carry me. I am not the gospel; Jesus Christ alone is the gospel. His story saves me, not only by bringing me justification but by baptizing me into his resurrection life.

Conformity to Christ’s image (sanctification) is the process of dying to self (mortification) and living to God (vivification) that results from being regularly immersed in the gospel’s story of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. Another way of putting it is dislocation (from Adam and the reign of sin and death) and relocation (in Christ). That my life is not the gospel is good news both for me and for my neighbors. Because Christ is the Good News, Christians as well as non-Christians can be saved after all. For those who know that they too fall short of the glory that God’s law requires—even as Christians who now have a new heart that loves God’s law—the Good News is not only enough to create faith but to get us back on our feet, assured of our standing in Christ, ready for another day of successes and failures in our discipleship.

We do not preach ourselves but Christ. The good news—not only for ourselves, but for a world (and church) in desperate need of good news—is that what we say preaches better than our lives, at least if what we are saying is Christ’s person and work rather than our own. The more we talk about Christ as the Bible’s unfolding mystery and less about our own transformation, the more likely we are actually to be transformed rather than either self-righteous or despairing. As much as it goes against our grain, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for justification and sanctification. The fruit of faith is real; it’s just not the same as the fruit of works-righteousness.

Yes, there is hypocrisy, and because Christians will always be simultaneously saint and sinner, there will always be hypocrisy in every Christian and in every church. The good news is that Christ saves us from hypocrisy too. But hypocrisy is especially generated when the church points to itself and to our own “changed lives” in the promotional materials. Maybe non-Christians would have less relish in pointing out our failures if we testified in word and deed to our need and God’s gift for sinners like us. If we identified the visibility of the church with the scene of sinners gathered by grace to confess their sins and their faith in Christ, receiving him with open hands, instead of with our busy efforts to be the gospel, we would at least beat non-Christian critics to the punch. We know that we are sinners. We know that we fall short of God’s glory. That’s exactly why we need Christ. I know that many of these brothers and sisters would affirm that we are still sinners and that we still need Christ, but it sure seems to be drowned out by a human-centered focus on our character and actions.

Kimball writes that the “ultimate goal of discipleship .. . should be measured by what Jesus taught in Matthew 22:37-40: `Love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and soul.’ Are we loving him more? Love others as yourself. Are we loving people more?”13 I was raised in conservative evangelicalism on this same diet of sermons that ended with a question like this one. A truly radical change in our approach would be to proclaim Christ as the one who fulfilled this law in our place, bore its sentence, and now freely gives us his absolution. Only then, ironically, are we truly liberated to love again. For all of the Emergent Church movement’s incisive critiques of the megachurch model, the emphasis still falls on measuring the level of our zeal and activity rather than on immersing people in the greatest story ever told. It may be more earnest, more authentic, and less consumeristic, but how different is this basic message from that of Joel Osteen, for example? Across the board in contemporary American Christianity, that basic message seems to be some form of law (do this) without the gospel (this is what has been done).”

Really, I have to admit the argument is very attractive. It definitely takes the pressure off of us. There is no way we are going to be perfect anyway, so why not emphasize the works of Christ rather than our own? Get people focused on Christ rather than us; why would you want Christ and the gospel represented by our best efforts? However, before I continue, I will take exception to being compared to Joel Olsteen because I believe in an effort on our part to represent Christ by our good behavior. I think a little more than that separates me and others from the likes of Joel Olsteen. But let’s be honest here, in light of what Horton says above; “What does the Scriptures say?”:

“Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives”(1Peter 3:1,2).

Obviously, Peter is well aware that wives will never have a perfect testimony; but regardless, his counsel to wives is clearly stated. This plainly contradicts Horton’s premise in every way possible.

Also, didn’t Christ say something about letting “your” light shine before men, so that God would be glorified? Furthermore, in regard to our efforts at good behavior according to the Scriptures, is that really some kind of effort to “be the gospel” rather than “adorning” the doctrine of God as Paul instructed us to do? (Titus 2:10).

The apostles made it clear that the last days would be marked by shrewd attempts to undermine God’s law. Frankly, I am leery of any teaching that seems to devalue the upholding of God’s law by our Christian walk. I also recommend caution towards those who claim to uphold God’s law by saying He (Christ) does all the obeying for us.

Even if they don’t come right out and say it, they may talk against everything that would prevent such a conclusion, and therefore teaching it by default. But the bottom line is the following: if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.

paul

Freedom Road: Part 1; Genesis 1:1-5

“This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.”

 

A hermeneutic is a method of interpretation. For God’s child, His intended hermeneutic for us is demonstrated in the very first sentences of Scripture. “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Statement of fact, no explanation, no apologetics to make the case. The very first sentence in the Bible is authoritative and assumes superintention for the rest of the book.

Secondly, its truth is plainly stated, and separated from God’s mystery. God’s servant is to carefully observe the details and draw truth accordingly without presuming anything. We also see another interpretive tool meant for God’s people that excludes the necessity of knowing what the Hebrew word for “day” means: “And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.” So, “day” here obviously means one solar day. Therefore, God’s word is to be interpreted literally and taken at face value. God also elaborates and confirms the literal meaning.

God is glorified when His children use the brains they are given. There are going to be truths that are difficult to understand. But God never intended His word to be overly difficult to understand, and certainly, God’s children are not to be dependent on scholars. This is clear from Acts 17:11 where we have the Bereans confirming the teachings of one of the greatest Bible scholars of all time, the apostle Paul. What about allegory, symbolism, and parables in the Bible? How do we know when to apply those principles to interpretation? Well, the Bible usually tells us when that’s the case. It is my contention that the Bible contains its own rules for interpretation. For instance, in Galatians 4:24 we read, “Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.” In Matthew chapter 13 we read the following:

Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age.

Regardless of the fact that our Lord explains this parable in no uncertain terms, various contrary interpretations abound from the supposed scholars of our day.  And even in regard to the complexity of the book of Revelation, our Lord gives clear methods of interpretation and interpretive keys:

19 Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this. 20 As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands, the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches (Rev. 1:19,20).

And angels as well….

6 And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her, I marveled greatly. 7 But the angel said to me, “Why do you marvel? I will tell you the mystery of the woman, and of the beast with seven heads and ten horns that carries her (Rev. 17:6,7).

Regardless of clear interpretation from our Lord and holy angels, the Gnostics and self-aggrandizing academiacs  of this day defile our sanctification with their arrogant musings. Some, like Francis Chan, describe us as “clay vessels struggling to describe this vast treasure.” Hardly. Our Lord wants us to understand—that’s important to Him. He wants us to be free with the truth found in the perfect law of liberty (John 8:32, James 1:25).

Everywhere throughout the Scriptures, they teach us how to interpret them. Matthew 4:4 teaches us that in some way, ALL Scripture contributes to our spiritual growth. 2Timothy 3:16,17 teaches this as well. To the contrary, many in our day have bought into the idea that the study of last things (eschatology) is “less relevant” than “the gospel” and is “secondary truth.” Yet, Paul said that those who have hope in regard to eschatological truth “purify themselves” and “comfort one another” (1John 3:2,3; 1Thess. 5:11).

Yet another example among many is the unique hermeneutic laid forth by the Holy Spirit for Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. It states that Christ “opened His mouth [perhaps an illusion to Matthew 4:4] and taught them, saying….”  What does it mean when you are being taught? When you go into any kind of classroom for the purpose of being taught,  and that is the goal, all things needed to accomplish that goal are assumed. His audience for that sermon was, for the most part, the uneducated peasants of that day. And they were “taught”—past tense. The Sermon on the Mount is to be taken literally, and at face value. Trust me, these people knew nothing of New Covenant Theology; or for that matter, the vileness of it all, or anything regarding deep theological matters of interpretation. The hermeneutic for that sermon was common sense, period.

Furthermore, because the Bible interprets itself, another big question is solved; especially in regard to new believers: “Where is the best place to start?” Answer: “In the beginning.” Because the Bible interprets itself, a study of the book of Genesis will also cover the rest of the Bible. When I was a new believer, other Christians chuckled at the fact that I didn’t follow the usual churchy cliché of “starting in the book of John because it is about the gospel.” ALWAYS counsel a new believer to start in the beginning, and then take the opportunity to disciple by showing how the old interprets the new and vice versa. And where do we get that? Again, from the Bible itself (Matthew 13:16,17, 51,52; 1Peter 1:10-12). In Matthew 13:51,52, Jesus, while stating that what He was saying at that time was the new—was also stating that the old was necessary also. What is more obvious than the fact that the book of Revelation cannot be fully interpreted without many Old Testament books; particularly, Daniel and Ezekiel. And for that matter, Genesis as well. This is why theologies such as New Covenant Theology cannot withstand biblical hermeneutics. It also reveals how teachings like Geerhardus Vos’ “Biblical Theology” were forged with the very fires of hell.

With this in mind, let us look at Genesis 1:1-5:

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

If one listens to the theological Timothy Learys of our day, these first verses are supposedly about the gospel. Go figure. Anybody see “gospel” here? Supposedly, God created the earth as a chaotic void (representative of man and his devices) so He could then bring forth light in the midst of  “chaos” as a way to “show forth the gospel.” Anybody see “chaos” here? Since when does dark  + void + water = chaos?

If people would just shut up and listen to the Holy Spirit, something astounding is going on here. In the beginning, God created the Earth, and the following verses are what He created first. So what do we have? Thus far: darkness, and water, in a void and without a form, and then God adds light. So what we have now is darkness and light as one (what in the world would that look like?!), suspended in a void with a body of water that has one side (“the face of the deep” [probably all of the water that is now on the Earth]). This isn’t a picture of man, this is God’s majesty and mystery on display. How can light and darkness be one and the same? Add this gargantuan mass of water with a surface, and without form elsewhere, and what you have is a spectacle that cannot be recreated in any kind of illustration. In addition, God offers no explanation for this, but rather states it as fact. This is very uncharacteristic of how men write and contains concepts that men could never invent.  Note verse four: “And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.” Obviously, if the light and darkness were not one, He wouldn’t have separated them. One can create all kinds of theories about what God was supposedly symbolizing in these verses, but I assume the light and the darkness being one causes most of the models (if not all of them) to break down on that point. One wonders if that was intentional on God’s part.

Such was the first day of creation. The first five verses create many questions that only God can answer. Did He create darkness in the first day? It would seem so, because He gives both  light and darkness their names in verse 5. Was water already present before the creation of the earth? Perhaps, we have no indication here that water was created. But if light and darkness were created, does that mean there was no light and darkness before the creation of the Earth? And what in the world do the two look like as one?

Yes, the wonderment of our great Father. We stand in awe of Him, do we not?

How ironic that those who approach the Bible literally are often accused of being “overly simplistic.” Really? Seeing these verses as gospel seems more simplistic to me, if not downright silly. Not only that, please do not mess up my present condition of being awestruck by God’s majesty with another boring 7-11 praise song. That’s seven verses about the gospel repeated eleven times.

paul

Freedom Road: Introduction

If our Lord came back today, things wouldn’t be much different. I firmly believe this because of what I read in the Sermon on the Mount. Like today, the theological brainiacs of that era were saying that Christ came to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).

Something else would be the same as well. He wouldn’t even meet with the academic theological brain trust of our day. I’m sure they would be incredulous in even considering it, but Christ would not seek them out, nor would he agree to make an appointment with them.  Like the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, and Lawyers of that day, they would have to catch up to him in the ghetto and wait their turn. If Christ stopped by in April, one can only imagine the perplexed looks on the faces of Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, and CJ Mahaney when Jesus fails to appear with them at this year’s T4G Conference.

We are in the same kind of crisis today that was present then: the opinions of theologians ruled the day. Saints were reading the Scriptures through the established prisms created by men (notice how many Sunday Schools and Bible studies are based on periodicals and popular Christian books of our day).  The apostles and the common people were shocked at our Lord’s plenary dismissal of the theological giants of that day:

And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28,29).

Then the disciples came and said to him, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?” (Matthew 15:12).

And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” (Matthew 21:23).

Truly, we are a church culture enslaved by the musings of men who lust for worship from the church peasantry. Their clamoring of compromise to be invited to the next big gig is shamefully obvious. And has anybody noticed how many Scripture references appear in 200+ pages of the most popular Christian books of our day? Forgotten is the fact that our Lord is speaking directly to us in His word. And we are not only born again into completely new creatures, he has also given us an indwelling Illuminator, Counselor, and Helper. This emphasis is conspicuously missing from the theological rock stars of our day. What could be more obvious than their own wonderment of what we would do without them?

I have learned 90% of what I know that matters during two major trials in my life. In the second, God has shown me how dependent I have been on the opinions of men in my understanding of truth. So now I embark on a journey with just me, the Holy Spirit, and God’s word. I intend to start at the very beginning, Genesis 1:1, and these will also be  devotions for my family. Please comment, for you can also add fruit to this endeavor. But there is but one rule: share what God has taught you from these passages and DO NOT quote dead scholars or live ones!

Here I go. And I am free. Teach me Lord, because only truth sanctifies.

paul

The Evangelical Will Kane Moment

 

The Evangelical Will Kane Moment.

The Impressive Compass Bible Church and Their Future Apostasy

 

“Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well.”

 

I am encouraged about one thing this week. I remember a pastor asking me about Compass Bible church’s pastor/teacher Mike Fabarez four weeks ago: “Hey Paul, what do you think about this guy? He really seems to get it.” I remember thinking after reading the email: “What? Are you kidding! This guy is great! How could you be such a pessimist? I thought I was the one who sees this doctrine behind every bush!” Reflected in the pastor’s use of “seems” is his realization of how subtle this doctrine is. That’s encouraging; some get it, but Fabarez is not one of them.

As any reader here knows, I have been vigorously promoting the “Aggressive Sanctification Conference” hosted by Compass Bible Church that took place this past weekend. I even contemplated flying out there for the conference. Susan and I watched the conference together on live video stream. We were greatly encouraged by what we heard for the most part, but throughout the conference, we both perceived some red flags. Before I elaborate, let me tell you what happened in the final message of the conference by Compass elder Bobby Blakey. It was practically a full-blown New Calvinist sermon. In fact, the primary target of Fabarez’s criticism, Tullian Tchividjian, would have fully agreed with it.

Blakey clearly presented the following thesis in his message: in essence, “Yes, we need to be aggressive and all of these imperatives we are learning are awesome! Ya man, aggressive sanctification rules! And I am going to show you how to kick butt from the fourth commandment! You see man, like, we need a day of rest so we can contemplate the gospel and how great God is, and how little we are, like, we are just grasshoppers. Then that empowers us and invigorates us so that Jesus can do His work….[and don’t miss this]….”through us.’” Missing was the balance that reminds us that Jesus will not be judging His own works at the Bema Seat. Missing were the biblical words, “colaborers,” and “Helper.”

Blakey’s thesis also strongly suggested an “invigoration” that is always present with our works as a result of taking a day to meditate on God’s greatness and what he has done for us through the gospel. This element of his message could have just as well been preached by John Piper himself. Missing was the Apostle Paul’s description of how he served God through a multifaceted array of emotions, weaknesses, and circumstances. Missing was Christ’s agony in His obedience to the cross as one who knows the Father as Himself. In addition, Blakey’s rendition of the exodus to make this point could have just as easily been penned by Graeme Goldsworthy. The whole message reeked of New Calvinism. And shockingly, he implemented a New Calvinist staple to further his point foisted on  the book of Ephesians: the indicative/imperative hermeneutic which is a mainstay of Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology. I sat dumbfounded and shell-shocked.

New Calvinists have no problem with aggressive sanctification whatsoever, just so it all goes through the cross first and is ALL performed by Jesus “through us.” Apparently, Christ misspoke and really meant to say, “Good contemplating my little grasshopper…,” instead of, “Well done faithful servant.” The Conference started with a message by Fabarez who apologized for being an apologist by erecting his upstart Aggressive Sanctification blog. He said it wasn’t his “forte” and he didn’t enjoy it at all. He obviously wanted to make sure everybody knew that he is above the fray. Nevertheless, his contention against the fusion of justification and sanctification was outstanding, but over-simplified. Most New Calvinists will have it for lunch, especially since nobody knows who the New Calvinists are because as Fabarez mentioned, he doesn’t like to name names. This is like the aids epidemic that flourished between 1969 and 1979 because it didn’t have an identity. Somehow, New Calvinism doesn’t pose as much of a danger. Apparently, it’s like catching a cold—no need to get ugly about it and start naming names.

The second message was by associate pastor Pete Lasutschinkow. Compass’ website states that he studied biblical counseling under Jay Adams at Westminster Seminary. That’s good if it was the only reason he was there at the time. The message was outstanding and very Adamsesque. He cited a lack of leadership among men as the greatest danger to the Christian family today, but I have news for him; teaching that elders have more authority in the home than the husband—and one spouse believing in synergistic salvation constitutes a mixed marriage is not helpful either (as others such as New Calvinists teach).

Other than Blakey, another one of Fabarez’s boy-elders, Lucas Pace, started out strong by describing obstacles to discipleship. Susan and I took notes vigorously, but then he got into framing disobedience via David Powlison’s Heart Theology which is the counseling application of Sonship Theology. The Bible never frames misplaced priorities in regard to idols in the heart. Again, another example of New Calvinist leaven permeating Compass’ eldership.

Therefore, Compass is destined to go the way of ministries like NANC, Coral Ridge, Grace Community Church, and Clearcreek Chapel. Leadership always thinks it can toy with a little bit of leaven. Things are going good for Compass right now, but like Dr. John Street when he was at Clearcreek Chapel, Fabarez is asleep at the switch. Ministries are in their greatest danger when things are going well. When John Street allowed Powlison’s Heart Theology into Clearcreek Chapel’s NANC training program, that was the beginning of the end—as an elder, I saw it happen with my own eyes. Fabarez is well on his way to being a mega-sellout like John MacArthur Jr. unless he reins in his boy-elders, but let me tell you why that’s not going to happen.

I have recently learned how our present church culture is dominated with the neo-evangelism that evangelicals were decrying in the 60’s. Basically, neo-evangelism rejected biblical separatism. From it, truism’s like, “All truth is God’s truth”; You can’t throw out the baby with the bathwater [even though the baby is a Canaanite]; Don’t be apologetic, focus on the “truth” and the rest will fall in place [kindred to Fabarez’s approach at the conference]; take off the shelf what is good, and leave the rest there; etc.

Hogwash.

And this is the reason Compass will go the way of all the others—they don’t get it: “sanctification” means to “set apart.” And obviously, they are not aggressively setting apart. They allowed the spirits of the very doctrine they decry to speak throughout  the conference!

paul

A Second Open Letter to Lou Priolo

Dear Lou Priolo,

I see that you are still the featured speaker at Clearcreek Chapel’s annual “Family Enrichment Conference” taking place on January 27-28, 2012. Still convinced that you are a man who would never use the position that God has placed him in to give undue credibility to men who are unrepentant regarding evil deeds, I will now make an attempt to spell things out more clearly for you:

Because the Clearcreek elders are drunk with visions of grandeur, they sought to neutralize me as a member because I basically figured out what they were spoon-feeding the congregation. I became a threat to their role as the great new Reformers saving the church from the Dark Age of Synergistic Sanctification.

I left quietly with my family after they used every cult tactic in the book to dissuade my concerns. A letter was issued to all elders and my departure was upon receipt of that letter. The parishioners were not aware of the contention between the elders and me.  Less than a week later, two elders, Dr. Devon Berry, an associate professor of psychiatry at UC, and Mark Schindler, arrived at my house and announced that I was “under church discipline.” And this is key: Devon Berry said that it was the “first step of church discipline.” They were obviously concerned that I was no longer under their authority and parishioners would want to know why we left.  We had been members there for at least eighteen years and I was a former elder. Russ Kennedy, the pastor/teacher at Clearcreek, may have been concerned that he would be sent packing like he was in Illinois for being less than forthright about his theology.

Though I was dazed and confused about the visit, I did one thing right; I asked that the reasons for the church discipline be put in writing and that I would be given time to pray about it. In the meantime, I was counseled by two pastors to return and “play the game until I could leave in peace,” and was also counseled by my son-in-law (a missionary in Puerto Rico) to NOT  submit to the discipline. But here is my first point: regardless of the fact that my life was supposedly full of sin, they waited till I submitted a letter of departure to the elders to put me under church discipline. Why?

After my son-in-law called them on it—it set off a string of blunders and additional lies to cover up other lies. Instead of telling an intelligent lie that I gave them a letter after being confronted about sin I wouldn’t deal with, they instead stated in a letter to me that they did not interpret my letter as intent to leave membership because I didn’t specifically say, “please remove me from membership.” But here is what my letter stated:

After much consideration and prayer, and with a heavy heart, I tell you that there is no possible way I can remain at Clearcreek Chapel with my family. Furthermore, I am not willing to discuss the matter any further. Shirley may remain long enough to wrap-up outstanding ministry while I search for another church home.

Here is their response to me in regard to the charge:

We have attached your letter received by us on December 9, 2007 [actually, they did not attach the letter. This was a ploy to see if I retained a copy for myself because my wife couldn’t find one in my computer files where I normally kept such records]. You have represented this letter as your demand to have your membership removed from the Chapel. No such request or demand is in the letter. You say that you are going to be seeking another church and then state your disagreements with the Chapel. You did not ask to remove your membership. We did not receive this as a request to be removed as a member.

Hence, they unwittingly made the letter the issue and not sin issues, plainly verifying the fact that there were no sin issues being discussed before I submitted the letter. Instead of their response stating, “Paul, the letter is neither here or nor there and is not valid because we were in the second step of church discipline,” they made the interpretation of the letter the issue in order to justify a first step of discipline. But even a child would laugh at the ridiculous notion that my letter was not an intent to separate myself from Chapel membership. Furthermore, the fact that the letter initiated this unjust action speaks for itself. They knew they couldn’t say the letter came after the first step of discipline was initiated, so they had to say the letter wasn’t an intent to depart.

Secondly, the Clearcreek elders realized they had a second problem in the situation. After taking the advice of the two other elders (as opposed to the counsel of my son-in-law) and allowing Clearcreek to hold me hostage there for almost four months, I submitted a second letter to inform the Clearcreek elders that I had been counseled by other pastors to leave there with my family at all cost. Devin Berry and Mark Schindler then returned to my home to verify that my letter was an intent to leave membership. Why did they not ask for such verification in the first visit? But the bigger question that they anticipated from people was the following: “Why wouldn’t his attempt to leave be the second step of church discipline?” Well, they attempted to cover their tracks on that in the same letter:

On January 8, you received a visit from two elders who informed you that you were at the second stage of corrective discipline. You were given a letter outlining the category of sins, some specific examples of those sins and what true, godly repentance would entail. You did not then respond that you were not a member and not subject to discipline. You said you would prayerfully consider what we had to say and how you would respond.

I responded in a letter to their fellowship of churches:

Furthermore, in another lame attempt to cover their behavior, they claim (in the same letter) that I was presented with a second letter by two elders that initiated a second step of church discipline. I received no  such  letter;  nor  did  I  meet  with  two  elders  in  regard to  a  second step of  church  discipline.  In anticipation of these letters sent by me, I made the following request to the Clearcreek elders:

“In your written response to the website: www.eldersresolution.org, you claim that I was presented with a letter by two elders on January 8, 2008, that specifically stated that I was in the second step of church discipline. I respectfully request that a copy of this letter be sent to me, along with the names of the two elders that presented this letter to me at that time.”

The request was ignored. Why? Because no such letter was ever drafted and no such meeting ever took place; that’s why. In addition, such a letter could only produce additional contradictions, even if it was produced.

Apparently forced into a position to reply, they sent me the following email:

In our response to the website, we did not say that the letter given you “specifically stated” that you were in the second step of church discipline. In our response to the website, we wrote the following:

“On January 8, you received a visit from two elders who informed you that you were at the second stage of corrective discipline. You were given a letter outlining the category of sins, some specific examples of those sins and what true, godly repentance would entail. You did not then respond that you were not a member and not subject to discipline. You said you would prayerfully consider what we had to say and how you would respond.”

Also, we misread our records. On January 8, 2008 there was an Elder’s Meeting in which the elders who visited with you in December gave their report.

After leaving the church discipline and Clearcreek for the second time,  and entering into counseling with pastor Rick Wilson, a certified NANC counselor, the Clearcreek elders excommunicated me on a Sunday morning without stating specific reasons and deliberately leaving the parishioners to their own imaginations. It is the most despicable form of slander I have ever witnessed in my life. Furthermore, a parishioner sent me the following email shortly thereafter:

But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the people for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend] at one point and [elder’s name withheld] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.

I later met with this parishioner face to face and confirmed the fact that the Clearcreek elders had full knowledge that this Chapel member was cohabitating outside of marriage while putting me under a completely bogus church discipline. Moreover, they submitted a six page resolution commanding my wife to return to the Chapel, stating that I had been declared an unbeliever by them and had no authority in her life. They also offered to supply her with housing, a job, and attorneys fees if she decided to divorce me. After accusing me of not sufficiently supplying for my family in a three-year period prior to 2007, their very own attorney supplied tax records in a domestic court hearing showing that I made over 100,000 dollars in 2005 in an attempt to elicit more child support that was being paid in the temporary order.

Dr. Priolo, these are wicked men. Not only do they teach blatant false doctrine, their vile character precedes them. If you go there, you are a partaker in their evil. And I will not go the way of those who have fled to other states to avoid their persecution, I will stand against them and their filthy false doctrine till my dying day, so help me God.

Paul M. Dohse

How Christian Hedonism Uniquely Denies the Necessity of the New Birth

 

How Christian Hedonism Uniquely Denies the Necessity of the New Birth

Shaking of Adventism Update

The Shaking of Adventism written by one of the Australian 3 promises to be a valuable addition to the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism. Dr. Geoffrey Paxton wrote the book during the pinnacle of the Australian Forum’s influence.

On page 63 of  The Truth About New Calvinism, I cite a writer who said the Forum “shaped the thoughts and ideas of Michael Horton.” That might be the understatement of the century—Paxton’s book has an uncanny semblance to Christless Christianity, a book written by Horton.

Another unexpected treat: I thought Gospel Sanctification, Christocentric Hermeneutics, and Gospel Contemplationism where probably Johnny-come-lately theologies that the Forum integrated with Brinsmead’s brainchild, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Not so. Brinsmead drew these things from within SDA’s historical theologies. Paxton shows clearly how the 1888 Convention attempted to move Adventism away from Pelagianism toward a more orthodox view of justification. In the mix is a clear testimony showing that Ellen White was advocating a Gospel Contemplationism via Christocentric preaching and teaching. Was it original with her? Or did she get it from someone else? Hard telling, but keep in mind, we are talking about 1888 here.

At the 1952 Convention, Dr. Edward Heppenstall built on the 1888 Conference and advocated what we now call “Gospel Sanctification”: “ The other method of bringing harmony between man and the law is to change the sinful nature of man, so that it becomes again in accord with the divine law. There is only one method by which this can be done. That is the method of free grace or righteousness by faith.”

However, the debate then began over whether or not that a righteousness by faith that was within us was merely semi-Pelagianism verses crass Pelagianism. Adventists Dr. Desmond Ford and H.K. LaRondelle (who studied under G.C. Berkouwer) would have profound influence on Brinsmead in regard to these issues. However, remember that the whole debate was still founded on a false premise: the fusion of justification and sanctification.

paul

The False Gospel Duo and a Confused Hypocrite Following

Missed in the entire fray about New Calvinism is the simple fact that its premise is a false gospel. Clearly, the core of New Calvinism is the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS). Not many will fuss over a view that true righteousness comes to us from the outside for justification, but the Forum then extended that same reality to sanctification as well. We are supposedly sanctified by a righteousness that is still completely outside of us and not part of us. Certainly, this should be evident via the constant bellowing by New Calvinists that believers are still totally depraved.  Hence, like the Forum, New Calvinists like Michael Horton deny the significance of the new birth.

The fundamental flaw of New Calvinism, like 99% of all false gospels, starts with the idea that justification has to be maintained. In order for us to be proclaimed righteous, we have to actually be perfectly righteous in practical behavior and able to stand righteous before God at any time. But Christians will not stand at a judgment that determines righteousness, for we have already been declared such, and the full righteousness of God has been credited to our account. Sanctification is totally separate from justification and cannot take away from justification or add to it. Romans 8:30 makes this certain.

But the Forum, being primarily grounded in SDA theology, followed the idea that is indicative of all Jesus plus something else doctrines: sanctification is the link between justification and glorification; the two (just. and sanct.) cannot be separated. Starting with that premise, there can only be two outcomes: justification only deals with the past and we have to work our way to heaven via keeping the law (always mixed with traditions or the “commandments of men”) and ritual. Or, the understanding that if that’s the case, Jesus or the Holy Spirit must keep the law for us so perfection can always be offered to God “by faith.” Hence, we are able to stand righteous at the judgment because Christ or the Holy Spirit keeps the law for us. Ie., antinomianism. New Calvinism bought into the latter Forum package hook, line, and sinker.

How this pans out among New Calvinists in “practical application” varies, but a good example is David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change as articulated by Paul David Tripp in “How People Change”: we are sanctified the same way we are justified; as we partake in “deep repentance by faith” our hearts are emptied of idols that replace Christ and we experience a filling of Christ leading to manifestations of the Holy Spirit. In New Calvinism, sanctification is sort of a purgatory where we work out justification by faith alone. As long as our motive is to be sanctified the way we were justified, by faith alone, we are ok. Like Steve Green’s song, “That’s Where The Joy Comes From,” we are, “empty vessels waiting to be filled.” Like John Piper’s thesis in When I Don’t Desire God, obedience that comes from heaven is validated by joy, and we cannot do anything to obtain joy—it is a gift. We work out our salvation in the weeds and the tares and wait for joy to come (p.43). When we are confronted with a choice to obey and do not possess joy resulting from gospel contemplationism, go ahead and obey, but ask for forgiveness in doing so (ebook, Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial).

Again, according to many New Calvinists, sanctification is a sort of  justification purgatory where we work out our salvation through subjective experience while focusing on the works of Christ only, and this is why justification should never be subordinated to sanctification. Yes, the “new birth” is true, but it is not objective like the gospel (justification) and should always be explained in a justification context.

New Calvinism is stayed on the concept that all righteousness remains outside of the believer. This was a Forum distinctive. Therefore, it would stand to reason that repentance on our part would not be included in the gospel message. A call for repentance AND faith insinuates a righteousness within the believer that would see the need for change. Regeneration is not the goal of the New Calvinist gospel—that encourages a focus on self and “navel watching” to the exclusion of recognizing the work of Christ and His glory. Sanctification is different because the goal there is to joyfully endeavor  in discovering the depths of our wickedness.  As we see and repent, more wickedness is revealed, more Holy Spirit manifestations occur, and the cross is made bigger by seeing more of Christ’s holiness and more of our wickedness. The only difference between a believer and unbeliever is believers see more of who they really are. See chart below published by a New Calvinist organization:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, two good examples of “the gospel” from two New Calvinists would be John Piper’s gospel “in a sentence” and CJ Mahaney’s gospel in five words. Mahaney often says that the gospel can be summed up in five words: Christ died for our sins. He also states: “Such news is specific: there is a defined ‘thatness’ to the gospel which sets forth the content of both our saving faith and our proclamation. It is objective, and not to be confused with our response.”

And regarding sanctification, Mahaney states:

The Bible tells us that, while there are many different callings and many possible areas of service in the kingdom of God, one transcendent truth should define our lives. One simple truth should motivate our work and affect every part of who we are.

Christ died for our sins.

It’s all about what Christ did, not anything we might do, like repentance as a result of new creaturehood. Likewise, here is what Piper states regarding the gospel:

What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence. The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That’s the gospel.

In the following post  http://wp.me/pmd7S-RP , I display four gospel video presentations by Piper in which the new birth and repentance are conspicuously missing. But yet, Piper worshipper John MacArthur continually fustigates others that don’t preach a gospel that includes repentance. The following video is one example:

AND A ONE-SENTENCE GOSPEL, AND A FIVE-WORD GOSPEL IS?

And, once again, like 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, MacArthur will appear on stage with Mahaney at the 2012 Resolved Conference sponsored by his church, Grace Community. And this after Mahaney was forced to step down from a ministry he founded for serial sheep abuse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In light of this, I will think of MacArthur in the best possible light: a former stalwart of the faith is now a confused hypocrite. I guess that’s better than saying that he now advocates a false gospel. Even though he does, our former heroes die hard. But because of our love for the truth, die they will as those whom we follow. Even the apostle Paul instructed Christians to follow him “as I follow Christ.” And trust me, MacArthur is no apostle Paul. If Paul were invited to speak at a Resolved Conference, he would shrink back in horror at the rock concert like setting that seems to say that we need more than the excitement of the very words that come forth from God’s own mouth. And the location is also telling: Palm Springs. For sure that would have been Paul’s favorite place for ministry.

paul

Aggressive Sanctification: Parts 1-11

 

 

 

 

 

Biblical Sanctification & “Jesus + Nothing = Everything”
Aggressive Sanctification (part 1)

Responding to the Charge of “Legalism”
Aggressive Sanctification (part 2)

Working at Good Works
Aggressive Sanctification (part 3)

A Real Relationship with God
Aggressive Sanctification (part 4)

Regeneration Makes a Difference
Aggressive Sanctification (part 5)

Distinguishing Two “Sanctifications”
Aggressive Sanctification (part 6)

God’s Good Law
Aggressive Sanctification (part 7)

Moral Laws vs. Ceremonial Laws
Aggressive Sanctification (part 8)

The Doctrine of Rewards
Aggressive Sanctification (part 9)

Preaching, Application & “Moralism”
Aggressive Sanctification (part 10)

A Preoccupation with Fuzzy Language
Aggressive Sanctification (part 11)

Dear Tullian, Is My Pastor Preaching Correctly?

The litmus test that I use for myself is that if people walk away from my sermons thinking more about what they need to do than what Jesus has already done, I’ve failed to preach the Gospel….And a lot of preaching these days is “do more, try harder”…. (Tullian Tchividjian: Does Your Preaching Pass the Grace Test?).

“Finally, then, brothers, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more” (Apostle Paul, 1Thess. 4:1).

It’s behavior modification (Tullian Tchividjian: Does Your Preaching Pass the Grace Test?).

“….having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame” (Apostle Peter, 1Peter 3:16).

“Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good,” (Apostle Paul, Titus 2:3).

We come to church expecting God to give us a to-do list or the preacher to give us a to-do list (Tullian Tchividjian: Does Your Preaching Pass the Grace Test?).

“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Apostle Peter, 2Peter 1:5-8).

As long as we are given a to-do list, we maintain some measure of control over our lives (Ibid).

“Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable….But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified….that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor….(Apostle Paul, 1Cor. 9:25, 27, 1Thess. 4:4).

So we come to church saying, “Pastor, my marriage is in trouble…my children are going off the deep end…my business is failing…I’m coming to you as the expert to tell me what to do to fix my own life…”  And as a result, our lives get worse, not better, because we’re taking matters into our own hands (Ibid).

“I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish (noutheteo , or to counsel) you as my beloved children….We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish (Ibid) you….I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct (Ibid) one another….Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing (Ibid) one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God….Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction (Ibid), on whom the end of the ages has come” (Apostle Paul, 1Cor. 4:14, 1Thess. 5:12, Romans 15:14, Colossians 3:16, 1Cor. 10:11).

So my job at the end of every sermon—and this is the grid by which I preach—I preach God’s law, and then I preach God’s Gospel.  Both are good.  The law diagnoses my need and shows me that my best is never good enough.  So I’m always trying to help our people realize that they’re a lot worse than they realize, and they’re a lot more incapable than they think they are (Ibid).

“I myself am satisfied about you, my brothers, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with all knowledge and able to instruct one another” (Apostle Paul).

So my job at the end of every sermon is to, in some way, shape, or form, encourage our people by saying, “Cheer up.  You’re a lot worse off than you think you are, but God’s grace is infinitely larger than you could have ever hoped or imagined.  It is finished”(Ibid).

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (Apostle Paul, 1Cor. ch6).

It’s the people who constantly demand to-do lists and then preachers who capitulate to that demand and give them to-do lists; those are the people who get worse.  I’ve realized, and I’m only 39 years old, but I’ve realized the more I try to get better, the worse I get.  I’m just realizing I am a narcissist.  I think way too much about how I’m doing, if I’m doing it right, have I confessed every sin.  In other words, I’m thinking much more about me and what I need to do than Jesus and what He’s already done.  And as a result, I’m not getting better.  I’m getting worse (Ibid)..

“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality (1Thess. 4:3).

I think the whole notion of what it means to progress in the Christian life has been radically misunderstood.  Progress in the Christian life is not “I’m getter better and better and better…”  Progress in the Christian life is, “I’m growing in my realization of just how bad I am and growing in my appreciation of just how much Jesus has done for me (Ibid).

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil” (Apostle Paul, 2Cor. 5:10).

Proverbs 4:18

But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, which shines brighter and brighter until full day.

“His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master’” (Jesus Christ, Matthew 25:23).

paul

Neo-Evangelicalism: A Good Friend of New Calvinism

“In fact, what better example of Neo-evangelicalism is there in our day than the Resolved conferences?  MacArthur has appeared on stage with Mahaney at every Resolved Conference since its conception in 2005, and shockingly, even after the recent controversies surrounding Mahaney, will appear with him again in 2012!”

I like to peruse used book stores and look at what was written in earlier years. I bought a book by Charles Woodbridge published in 1969 entitled “The New Evangelicalism.” Funny, I no more than put the book down after finishing it to check my email and saw that I was sent a link to an article written by a friend of Charles Spurgeon, Scottish pastor John Kennedy.  An excerpt:

The essay here reprinted appeared in 1874 in the wake of an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody and Ira D. Sankey, whose 1873 tour wrought a revolution of sentiment in Scotland. Scottish pastors, wishing to think the best, and inattentive to the new trends of thought and practice, were caught up in the swell of excitement. Though Kennedy was temperamentally disinclined to controversy, he was constrained to raise his voice for a full-orbed proclamation of the biblical gospel.

What was the crux of Neo-evangelicalism according to Woodbridge? Separation verses infiltration. Supposedly, more people get saved if they don’t perceive divisions among Christians. Kennedy bemoaned the fact that Scottish pastors embraced Moody revivalism at face value. Supposedly, cooperation furthers the kingdom. Neo-evangelicalism called for a tolerance for anything that called itself “Christian.” The clear biblical mandate for utilizing God’s work in separation was dismissed for “love and unity” and a “humbleness that is teachable.”

The outcry against Neo-evangelicalism was ignored, paving a wide road for destructive doctrines like New Calvinism in our day. Tolerance for blatant error and New Calvinism certainly go hand in hand. Neo-evangelicalism has made stalwarts like John MacArthur little more than hypocrites. Of course, the prime example is the invitation to CJ Mahaney to speak at a Resolved Conference after writing “Charismatic Chaos.” John Piper worshipper Justin Taylor applauded the contradiction. In fact, what better example of Neo-evangelicalism is there in our day than the Resolved conferences?  MacArthur has appeared on stage with Mahaney at every Resolved Conference since its conception in 2005, and shockingly, even after the recent controversies surrounding Mahaney, will appear with him again in 2012! What happened to MacArthur’s supposed conviction that elders are to be “beyond reproach”? And I emphasize “supposed” convictions.

Another mantra of our day that finds roots in Neo-evangelicalism is certainly, “All truth is God’s truth.” Supposedly, there is wisdom in turning over every flat rock laying upon the Earth to find some truth God might have hidden underneath. Every book list is a good list, just “eat the chicken and throw out the bones.” “Take off the shelf what is good and leave the rest there.” Of course, books written by Adolf Hitler, who said agreeable things, is conspicuously missing from the list. Presently, that is.

Woodridge aptly points out in the book that separation is the key to protecting the truth and leading violators to repentance (Romans 16:17). This is Christianity 101. Just last night, a pastor shared with me how the separation of an individual from their church membership led to his repentance and the salvation of his live-in girlfriend, with appropriate actions following. Go figure. In another case I recently heard about, an individual who was only shunned by a small segment of his extended Christian family ran into a life shattering circumstance. Guess who he went to for counsel? Right, the small segment. Something made him think they took truth seriously. The counsel resulted in him giving his life to the Lord.

Woodbridge pointed out that it is supposedly unity for the sake of the gospel. Same deal today. New Calvinists believe that all truth is secondary to what they call “the gospel” and not worth fighting over. In MacArthur’s mind, “chaos” in the lives of God’s people is acceptable because that’s a sanctification thing. He is now part of the, “Beholding as a way of becoming” crowd.

paul

Not Knowing Tullian Tchividjian Saved My Life

A reader sent me the latest post by Tullian Tchividjian. Go figure, he wasn’t able to pass on criticizing a concept that involves the possible use of verbs: New Year Resolutions. Susan and I had just finished working on a resolution of our own to begin the new year. We were not excited to partake in the endeavor. We knew it would reveal the necessity to make hard choices together. It was difficult not to focus on that rather than the glory that could be brought to God through the process. Afterward, while somewhat moody about the task, I checked my email, clicked on the link, and read it. So, hide the children.

Tullian Tchividjian is an icon among the Young, Reckless, and Rebellious that are presently tormenting the church. His followers are those who the apostle Paul said would come in the last days with itching ears—wanting to hear that the Christian life is a “mere natural flow.” According to Tchividjian, the acid test for determining if you are preaching the true gospel is to be accused of antinomianism. And while many of this bunch applauded the Queen of Anomia, Elyse Fitzpatrick, for stating that there is no such thing as antinomianism, others like New Calvinist/Super Yuppie Dane Ortlund claim that the apostle Paul was accused of being one; so hence, it is their goal as well. Even more detestable is the way that library theologians like John MacArthur lend credibility to these enemies of righteousness. In his ignorant ramblings about how the Young, Restless, and Reformed need to “grow up and keep reforming,” he is stupidly incredulous that antinomians are acting like antinomians.

And their arrogance is without boundary, having reverence for nothing but their own visions of grandeur. For example: yes, I realize that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had some issues in regard to orthodoxy, but I won’t even go there. Why? Because he left a cushy ministry in the States to take a stand against Nazism in Germany.  He observed that like the pastors of this day, they wouldn’t take a stand in Germany, but rather emphasized the positive of what Hitler had to offer. Bonhoeffer was eventually hanged while naked with piano wire. But as ones who talk like those who have taken off their armor before putting it on and standing before the razor thin noose, they constantly rag on him for saying things like, “ One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.”  Another example that is almost equally disgusting is the book written by the  pretentious and puerile Heath Lambert, passing judgment on the likes of Jay Adams. If the book is ever produced in audio, it would be an excellent complement to ventriloquist David Powlison.

And of course, Tchividjian wasted no time speaking for Susan and me regarding our New Year Resolution for the Lord. His message? Like all things that we try to do for the lord, it will fail. And gee whiz, isn’t it great that our acceptance before the Lord doesn’t depend on our performance?

I have some theological news for this vile antinomian and his fiend friend that sent him the quote that he thought was so special. That would be the friend who delights (like all New Calvinists) in bringing elderly saints up on bogus church discipline (I told you to hide the children. I am fed-up with this bunch and the cowards that cover for them). Here is the news flash: Susan and I don’t claim to be the brightest bulbs in the house, but we know at least this much; we cannot do anything to gain favor with God for purposes of justification. That’s impossible because He chose us to be completely justified before the Earth was created. Therefore, He also chose us, and the guaranteed result is glorification at a time of His choosing and good pleasure. Susan and I believe this with all of our hearts and it is the basis of this belief that gives us assurance of our salvation. But unlike these brute beasts, Susan and I have a King that we want to please for many reasons—reasons that He states, not mere men. We long to stand before Him and hear, “Well done, faithful servant.” And guess what? We actually believe He is talking about what we actually do. Excuuuuuse us for taking that literally and not embracing Tchividjian’s Gnostic-like approach to the Scriptures (also known as Redemptive Historical hermeneutics).

But what really torques me off about these men is their HOPELESS message. When I went to a biblical counselor some twenty-four years ago in the midst of a serious trial, I was a New Calvinist before New Calvinism was cool. I read Scripture and prayed for hours “seeking the Lord’s face.” In 1994, MacArthur explained what that means; in essence he said, “We don’t really mean like, you know, looking for a face in the Scriptures like something mystical. We mean like, you know, looking for Jesus in the Scriptures.” Ya, got it, except for the part about what Jesus SAYS, not what he looks like. MacArthur seems to have bought into the New Calvinist hermeneutic that is primarily concerned with who Jesus is as a “person.”  It’s almost as if none of them can wait to meet Jesus face to face so they can ask him what His sign is and His favorite color. “Is fish really your favorite food? Or was it because that was the staple food of the day?” Oh to know who Jesus really is!  The perfect complement is Francis Chan’s Jesus is my boyfriend theology. Meanwhile, Steve Camp and others have no clue where all of the Jesus is my boyfriend music comes from that they constantly lament. Antinomians acting like antinomians and those seeking to fall in love with Jesus singing Jesus is my boyfriend music, and no one is apparently able to connect the dots. What in the world is going on?

Thank goodness my counselor wasn’t Tchividjian . And thank goodness my counselor had not yet become the president of an evil empire. He told me that I could actually do something about my problem; specifically, what the Lord instructs. “Oh, you mean nothing’s happening because Jesus also wants me to do things? “ Profound.

This ministry is a witness to how New Calvinists counsel:  “We are helpless creatures who have this treasure of Jesus in clay vessels. Embrace the pounding of the trial as it breaks apart these vessels of clay and allows the glory of Jesus to shine out!”  Meanwhile, New Calvinists play on the results of an existing epidemic of our day: Christians functioning on biblical generalities and trying to do the right thing the wrong way. THAT IS WHY THEIR CHRISTIAN RESOLUTIONS FAIL,  not for lack of a Tchividjian false gospel. Thank goodness I didn’t know him. It would have been one New Calvinist leading another into a ditch.

paul

Obey

5 Point Salt: “Obey”

Paxton’s “Shaking” Adds More Confirmation to TTANC: Introduction to Series

I just finished reading “The Shaking of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton. The book was published in 1978 and is an inside look into historical events surrounding the Australian Forum during its apex. Paxton was one of the AF3, and wrote most of the Australian Forum’s  articles published in Present Truth magazine which was the Forum’s theology  journal.

The book clearly articulates present-day New Calvinism while crediting Robert Brinsmead with rediscovering the Reformation gospel. Paxton only notes two primary sources that helped Brinsmead develop the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS) doctrine that is the heart and soul of New Calvinism: the Reformers, and Seventh-day Adventist leaders. The only exception is the mentioning that a well-known SDA teacher studied under  G.C. Berkouwer, a gospel contemplationist quoted often by New Calvinists such as Michael Horton. The Forum also quoted Berkouwer extensively.

Paxton’s thesis is the following: Adventists have always claimed to be the guardians of Reformation doctrine, so the idea that the Reformation was rediscovered through them should be no surprise. COGOUS is clearly defined as the original Reformation doctrine. Paxton documents the historical events that paved the way for Brinsmead’s “discovery.”

Without any exception, the book strongly supports the position of “The Truth About New Calvinism.” More to come after I get back from celebrating my first year with Susan.  Our anniversary is tomorrow.

May your new year be blessed by our Lord,

paul

Back to the Mountain

 

Back to the Mountain.

Michael Horton’s Sonship Theology

 

Michael Horton’s Sonship Theology.

A Suggested SBC New Year’s Resolution for Survival: Get Rid of New Calvinism

“Unless the hostile takeover of the SBC is halted, Southern Baptists will be removed from history, its service assets compiled by sacred labor plundered, assemblies divided, and replaced with cult-like congregations.”

 “From the beginning, NCT/COG came forth from the womb with visions of grandeur, splitting churches, deceiving, and wreaking havoc on God’s people. It will continue to do so until it is stopped.”

Very well, if folks want to refer to the New Calvinists taking over the SBC as “aggressive Calvinism,” that will work; New Calvinists are very aggressive. The events going on in the SBC right now are a mirror image of Coral Ridge, Clearcreek Chapel, NANC, and many, many other examples. Recently, a Presbyterian pastor/acquaintance of mine warned a church that called him for references regarding a new pastor; in essence, he told them, “there is a dangerous movement afoot and the proponents are very stealth in regard to what they really believe—be careful.” They didn’t listen. The tragic results are all too common. The present debate over the SBC name change is part of it, and Southern Baptists better win that symbolic battle in order to hold ground.

There are many Christians in the SBC who do not like hyper-Calvinists. New Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism in both justification (salvation) and sanctification (plenary hyper-Calvinism). So if many Southern Baptists do not like hyper-Calvinism, they should dislike the double hyper-Calvinists even more who are in the process of taking over the Convention, and seeking to wipe out the memory of the SBC they secretly despise. SBC protestants need to better identify the enemy. They need to get rid of the “aggressive [New] Calvinists” first,  and then have discussion about the hypers and the standards later. Aggressive Calvinists threaten the very existence of the SBC.

The Difference Between the Old and the New

This is not difficult. One only needs to examine their mantras to know the difference between Old and New Calvinism. “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” “The gospel isn’t the entry point of Christianity, it is the A-Z of Christianity” [even though Christ referred to the gospel as an entry point to the kingdom, and the apostle Paul referred to the gospel as a  “foundation”: 1Corinthians 3:10-15, Romans 15:20]. If we are sanctified by salvation, what does that say about what Aggressive [New] Calvinists believe about sanctification? All Christians, whether Calvinistic or otherwise, believe that salvation is by faith alone and not works. Theologians call this “monergistic.”

However, we also believe that sanctification is “synergistic,” meaning that the new birth enables us to co-labor with God in the sanctification process as friends devoted to Him in the truest sense. In other words, our marvelous God has made a way to be reconciled to Him while also enabling us to participate in His work in a truly legitimate way despite our weakness. The Bible specifically refers to us as God’s co-laborers in 1Corinthians 3:9, 1Thessalonians 3:2, and 2 Corinthians 6:1.

But obviously, if we are sanctified by salvation (justification), sanctification must also be monergistic (a work by God alone). And as indicated elsewhere in this book, this is critical because the law (Scripture) is a primary conduit used to participate in God’s work. If we cannot participate in sanctification, neither can we uphold God’s law in sanctification any more than we could in justification. This is the crux of the matter. The real issue is the church’s primary nemesis employed by the kingdom of darkness throughout the ages: against every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. This is what theologians call “antinomianism,” and as discussed in chapter one, the Bible predicts that it will be the spirit of the last days. Christ and the apostles framed the last days in context of “anomia” (primarily, 2Thessalonians, chapter 2; Matthew 7:23, 13:41, 24:11,12; 2Corinthians 6:14; Titus 2:14). It’s the same type word, used in all of these cited verses regarding the spirit, fellowship, love, antichrist, and redemption of the last days, as our English word “atypical,” or “against/anti what is normal.” Old Calvinists do not believe in monergistic sanctification which necessarily makes us antinomians. And orthodox evangelicalism has never believed in sanctification by faith alone. The modern-day epitome of Old Calvinism, Dr. Peter Masters, stated the following:

The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world (The Merger of Calvinism with Worldliness from Sword & Trowel 2009, No. 1 by Dr Peter Masters).

And this by Calvinistic Baptist Donn Arms, M.Div.:

Justification is monergistic, sanctification is synergistic. Walking is what I do, not something Christ does for me (Institute for Nouthetic Studies blog: Archives; Gospel Sanctification, May 13, 2011 Gospel Sanctification comments section).

Despite their adamant denials concerning the above, the simplicity of the Aggressive Calvinist mantras will always betray them in regard to their lies. And as discussed elsewhere in this book, all of their massive doctrinal pontification is discussion on how to make an overly passive sanctification work with the blessed truth of our Lord and Savior. Our brother Jude called Him our “absolute ruler” (despotace) and “supreme commander” (kooreeos).

Thirdly, Old Calvinists, unlike the Aggressive Calvinists, do not believe in the fusion of justification and sanctification. Listen to what Old Calvinist Jay Adams (no pun intended) said about “Gospel Sanctification” (the name given to New Calvinism [Aggressive Calvinism] before it was realized they are the same thing):

The crux of the issue has to do with the unbiblical fusion of sanctification with justification. The latter is set forth not as “keeping” God’s commandments, but as bringing about change by concentrating on the cross. As one immerses himself in the cross of Christ, sanctifying growth occurs. The biblical truth is that we are to pursue fruit, which becomes a reality and the Spirit helps us grow in grace (Institute for Nouthetic Studies blog: Archives; Gospel Sanctification, May 9, 2011 by Jay Adams).

The fact that Aggressive Calvinism fuses justification and sanctification together can be seen clearly in their mantra-like anthems such as, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.” This completely distorts the orthodox view of justification which is a onetime declaration by God that His righteousness has been credited to our account in full. According to their own pithy truisms, justification continues and completes itself. That’s a huge problem. If justification is progressive (what they deceptively call “progressive sanctification”), we cannot be involved, except in whatever our involvement was concerning justification. Hence, “….because the believer’s role is reduced to a point that is not according to Scripture, he/she is deprived of the abundant life in a way God wants us to experience it for His glory and the arousing of  curiosity from  those who don’t have the hope of the gospel.” And, “….while reductionist theologies seek to reduce the believer’s role to the least common denominator, supposedly to make much of God and little of man, the elements that attempt to make it seem plausible are often complex and mutating. Therefore, instead of majoring on the application of what is learned from Scripture, believers are constantly clamoring about for some new angle that will give them a ‘deeper understanding’ of the gospel that saved them.”(p. 77, The Truth About New Calvinism).

New Covenant Theology Cannot be Separated From New Calvinism

It is important to note that New Calvinism entered into the SBC through Reformed Baptist circles. New Calvinism was conceived by the Australian Forum’s Centrality of the Objective Gospel (COG). The detailed history can be observed in the “History” section of this book. Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology (NCT), worked with the Forum to develop a systematic theology that would make COG plausible.

Present Truth magazine was the Forum’s theological journal. Citing from volume 16, article 13, it is obvious that the Forum’s doctrine is exactly the same as present-day New Calvinism:

Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism or Pharisaism…. Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins…. Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.

As noted in this book, Robert Brinsmead, the principle figure of the Forum, was intimately involved with Zens and the development of New Covenant Theology before Zens coined the phrase in 1981 (chapter 5). Zens himself said that Robert Brinsmead wrote articles in the Baptist Reformed Review (BRR) that accomplished the following: “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]….” (Id. pages 56, 57).  The BRR was the primary lightening rod in the law/gospel debate raging in Reformed Baptist circles at that time, and Robert Brinsmead was a contributing author at the behest of Jon Zens. Zens took the doctrine into Reformed Baptist circles, while the Forum was primarily responsible for spreading the doctrine in Presbyterian territory, especially Westminster Seminary. Also, according to Zens, Present Truth magazine was “….the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at that time” (Id. p. 53).

Though COG/NCT  took on different nuances, COG and NCT share the same basic tenets that make the primary doctrine unique, and both were coauthored by Zens and Brinsmead.  They share the same unique hermeneutic, the same emphasis on progressive justification, the centrality of the gospel, a historic Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality, the personification of the law, the indicative/imperative prism, so-called “experiential Calvinism,” a majority view of Supersessionism, and especially unorthodox dichotomies of law and gospel (to name a few). The differences come in regard to how law and gospel relate to each other in order to make the doctrine fit together with “truth” in the best possible way. But propagators of both believe the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us. Both COG and NCT infuse justification and sanctification.

The recognition that NCT is integral to New Calvinism is grudging and aloof among proponents. For example, DA Carson vigorously supports NCT by his actions, but when cornered verbally, espouses things that sound like, “I was for it before I was against it.” And,  “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” A good example of this is an article by Jim Gunn entitled,  A Critique of New Covenant Theology (online source:  http://goo.gl/Pm9E9). The article is an apt specimen of how Carson and Tom Nettles vigorously support NCT, but refuse to acknowledge its validity in plain language.

Other New Calvinist leaders openly acknowledge that the two are inseparable. One example is the elders of Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, OH. They are a highly respected New Calvinist church regularly hosting notable teachers such as Paul David Tripp, Stuart Scott, Dr. Robert D. Jones, and Dr. Lou Priolo. While embracing gospel centrality, they consider it all to be under the auspices of NCT. This can be seen  in a series preached there by Chapel elder Dr. Dale Evans entitled, A Gospel-Centered Hermeneutic: Foundations for a New Covenant Theology. In his introduction, Evans stated:

Over the last several weeks, the pulpit ministry at Clearcreek Chapel has focused on presenting texts and issues related to the concept know[n] as New Covenant Theology. This morning we will look at a text and suggest that this idea under this label is exactly how the apostle Paul read and interpreted Scripture.

As a ministry that vigorously supports all the major tenets of New Calvinism such as Heart Theology, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Christian Hedonism, one of their pastors on staff, former radio personality Chad Bresson, is sometimes referred to as “the golden boy of central Ohio NCT.” On the one hand, he is also a member of the Earth Stove Society formed to promote NCT. On the other hand, he has a blog dedicated to the “Biblical Theology” of Geerhardus Vos, the father of Chrsitocentric Hermeneutics. He often posts articles by two former key figures of the Australian Forum on that same blog: Robert Brinsmead and Graeme Goldsworthy.

The Plot to Take Over the SBC With COG

The plot to  take over the SBC with the Forum doctrine was hatched in a hotel room in Euless, Texas on November 13, 1982:

Then, on November 13, 1982, [Ernest] Reisinger, Nettles and Malone met at a Holiday Inn in Euless, Texas, for prayer to seek God’s direction with respect to a Southern Baptist conference ministry. Nettles brought to the meeting several young men who had embraced the doctrines of grace. Among them were Bill and Tom Ascol, Ben Mitchell and evangelist R.F. Gates. Reisinger later called this one of the most meaningful prayer meetings in which he had ever participated. The attendees spent the first half of the day in prayer, reading Psalms and hymns. During the second half of the day, they discussed ideas. They finally settled on the idea of a conference with the doctrines of grace as its foundation. Thus began the Southern Baptist Founders Conference (Founders Ministries blog: The Beginnings of Reformation in The Southern Baptist Convention: The Rise of the Founders Movement).

Reisinger was a former Presbyterian turned Reformed Baptist, then Southern Baptist. He also knew Cornelius Van Til personally. Van Til, a Reformed Presbyterian with an inclination towards mysticism like his close friend Geerhardus Vos, attended Reisinger’s ordination in 1971. As far as the movement begun by Reisinger and others to restore the “doctrines of grace” to the SBC, another Presbyterian by the name of John H. Armstrong was apparently present at its conception and describes the movement as the beginnings of the “neo-Calvinism” movement in a review of Time magazine’s  2009 assessment of the New Calvinism movement:

I have watched this movement for neo-Calvinism from its infancy. I personally attended the first meeting (and several more the years following) of the group that started this effort back in the 1980s. I personally knew the founder who dreamed up the idea of recovering Calvinism in the SBC [Ernie Reisinger] and then spread the “doctrines of grace” very widely. He is now with the Lord [ie., five years prior in 2004]….I was also involved in the various “gospel” recovery groups which were begun, now creating large gatherings of folk who believe they are the people who are preaching and recovering the “biblical gospel” (John H. Armstrong blog: The New Calvinism, Archives; March 31, 2009).

The early eighties is when the combination of the Forum, their theological journal, and the push among Reformed Baptists by Jon Zens (with the help of Robert Brinsmead) began to rapidly expand. And the torch carried forth was the idea that the Forum had recovered the lost doctrines of grace. Armstrong makes that clear:

The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.

Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.

In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.

Reading Scott Hahn’s testimony in his book, Rome Sweet Home (Ignatius Press, 1993), I discovered the same misunderstanding. Here can be found a complete and total failure to perceive the truths of grace, faith and the righteousness of God. No wonder Hahn left his Presbyterian Church of America ordination behind to become a Roman Catholic. He did not understand the gospel in the first place, as his own words demonstrate.

I do not believe that the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith can be overstated. We are once again in desperate need of recovery. Darkness has descended upon the evangelical world in North America and beyond, much as it had upon the established sixteenth-century church (The Highway blog: Article of the Month, Sola Fide: Does It Really Matter?; Dr. John H. Armstrong).

According to Armstrong: “We are once again in desperate need of recovery. Darkness has descended upon the evangelical world in North America and beyond, much as it had upon the established sixteenth-century church.” Apparently, light came “twenty years” prior to his writing of that post via the Forum’s Present Truth magazine. That was the mindset of  the “Reformation” movement in the early eighties that is now New Calvinism. The details of this are expanded  in chapter four of this book.

A Proven Method  

Reisinger was no stranger to how the formation of conferences could affect the taking over of Christian groups. He witnessed firsthand how this was done by Jon Zens in 1979:

At the fall Banner of Truth Conference in 1979, Ron McKinney spoke with lain Murray, Ernie Reisinger and others about the possibility of having a conference where some aspects of Reformed theology could be discussed and evaluated by men of differing viewpoints (Jon Zens: Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments [72-84]).

That conference ended up being the first “1980 Council on Baptist Theology” held in Plano, TX. It was the coming out party for New Covenant Theology, and eventually resulted in the formation of a denomination that split a large group of Reformed Baptists. Two years later, Reisinger would be leading the way for the same kind of “revival.” From the beginning, NCT/COG came forth from the womb with visions of grandeur, splitting churches, deceiving, and wreaking havoc on God’s people. It will continue to do so until it is stopped.

But wasn’t Ernest Reisinger an opponent of NCT and a good friend of Walter Chantry who also opposed NCT? Apparently, Chantry was opposed to certain aspects of Zens’ teachings before it was NCT, especially the antinomian parts. As far as the who’s who of the evangelical world mugging together while differing on theology—what’s new?  NCT theology cannot be separated from New Calvinism over one of many disagreements among them concerning how law and gospel relate to each other. Still, they all believe in the fusion of justification and sanctification. Ernest Reisinger stated the following in “Lordship and Regeneration”:

The Lordship teaching puts the order of salvation as follows: 1) Regeneration, 2) Faith (which includes repentance), 3) Justification, 4) Sanctification (distinct from but always joined to justification), and 5) Glorification.

The “always joined“ justification and sanctification is the fusion thereof,  and the “distinct[ion]” he is talking about is the supposed idea that sanctification is the progressive form of justification. Orthodox evangelicals believe no such thing. Also, his view of the distinctions between law and gospel are endorsed by proponents of Sonship Theology, which will certainly save one research on that wise concerning Reisinger (Gospel Discipling—The Crying Need of the Hour: Stephen E. Smallman; Executive Director, World Harvest Mission, November 1997).

Does Chantry believe in the synthesis of justification and sanctification? It’s not relevant—the primary point concerning Chantry is that he recognized antinomian elements of NCT early in the movement, and also, his role refutes the story among New Calvinists that this doctrine has always been widely accepted among other Reformed leaders. It might be noted that he didn’t launch an attempted takeover of the SBC which makes him less relevant than Reisinger, who also promoted the Founders movement among Southern Baptists by claiming that James Boyce believed in their form of  “Calvinism.” Did James Boice believe in the fusion of justification and sanctification? That’s doubtful.

Did the COG Come After the Reisinger, or Before the Ascol?

One of the participants in the “prayer meeting”/takeover plot at the Holiday Inn at Euless was Tom Ascol, heir apparent to Reisinger’s pastorate and Founders Ministries. Ascol is a consummate New Calvinist. On Grace Baptist Church’s website, under “core distinctives,” the following statement appears:

The gospel is not an add-on to our services or merely an entry point to Christianity. The gospel is the message we preach and the means by which we persevere in the faith. We focus on applying the gospel to every area of living, including marriage, family, work, personal sanctification, evangelism, and Christian community.

In 2010, Ascol authored a resolution to the SBC’s annual convention entitled, “SBC Resolution on the Centrality of the Gospel.” In part, it reads:

….and be it further

RESOLVED, That we encourage churches in preaching, teaching, and discipleship to proclaim the gospel to unbelievers, showing them how to find peace with God, and to proclaim the gospel to believers, that through the renewing of our minds we might continually be transformed by the gospel.

Did Ascol embrace New Calvinism after the passing of an orthodox Ernest Reisinger? That’s very doubtful. Ascol said the following on Reisinger’s homepage:

Ernie Reisinger has been a mentor, friend and great encourager to me in the ministry. I thank the Lord for his influence in my life. [Tom Ascol Pastor of Grace Baptist Church, Cape Coral, Florida, Executive Director of Founders’ Ministries and Editor of Founders Journal.] (The Reformed Reader blog homepage).

Ascol represents what Reisinger believed from the beginning. Ascol learned it from  Reisinger.  Armstrong places Reisinger at the beginning of the movement, and as an eyewitness, describes it to a “T.” And like all New Calvinists, Reisinger possessed an arrogance that crowned him the supposed savior of the SBC.

The SBC’s Dark Future

Unless the hostile takeover of the SBC is halted, Southern Baptists will be removed from history, its service assets compiled by sacred labor plundered, assemblies divided, and replaced with cult-like congregations. The very essence of this movement and its tenets breed cultish assemblies. The following can be read on page 134 of this book:

All this leads to many New Calvinist churches taking on cult-like tendencies. Exclusiveness (new Reformation), an attitude that some higher knowledge is a part of the movement that many are not “ready” for (the scandalous gospel), and a subjective view of Scripture (a gospel narrative, not instruction) is a mixture that will have bad results, and is the perfect formula for a cult-like church.

The footnote accompanying this quote also reads as follows:

Many New Calvinist churches fit all eight descriptive points published by cultwatch.com: 1. Deception 2. Exclusiveness 3. Intimidation 4. Love Bombing  5. Relationship Control 6. Information Control  7. Reporting Structure 8. Time Control.

One example of this is New Calvinism’s approach to church discipline. They don’t believe in a Matthew 18 process to correct a particular situation—they believe in “redemptive church discipline.” What’s that?  It holds to the view that all sin is a result of one’s view of justification. Therefore, what they did is not the issue, their view of justification is the issue. So the discipline is “redemptive.” In other words, it is designed to bring the individual into New Calvinism and out of “evangelicalism” which New Calvinists continually liken to the Roman Catholicism that the “first reformers” contended against. This attitude  can be seen in the prior citation by Armstrong. Is this creepy and cultish? Absolutely.  Hints of this can be seen in a 2008 resolution to the SBC that (according to my understanding) Ascol contributed to:

RESOLVED, That we urge the churches of the Southern Baptist Convention to repent of the failure among us to live up to our professed commitment to regenerate church membership and any failure to obey Jesus Christ in the practice of lovingly correcting wayward church members (Matthew 18:15-18).

Notice the implication that church discipline regenerates.

Much could be discussed here just on the “deception” point alone, but I will close with one example that exemplifies the character of this movement. In heated back and forth correspondence with New Calvinists regarding the proposed connection between Founders and NCT, one of the contenders emailed Tom Ascol and asked him to verify that both Founders and Reisinger are/were anti-NCT. Ascol replied in the affirmative for them, and I was copied on the email. As evidence, Ascol claimed that Founders Press published the book, “In Defense Of The Decalogue” by Richard Barcellos (which is a devastating treatise against NCT). I found this very perplexing, and checked my copy. Sure enough, it was published by Barcellos himself through Winepress Publishing. Both the contenders and I have emailed Founders for an explanation, and are still waiting.

paul

“Snap”: The Sound of the Trap Laid in the First “Objective Gospel” Post

“Conclusion: Piper, Mohler, Devers, DeYoung, et al, are really just a bunch of Progressive Adventists. That’s just fact.”

“Therefore, the Forum came up with a systematic theology that could present sanctification as finishing justification with our participation limited to faith only like justification, lest we be a participant in being justified. And that is the doctrine inherited by New Calvinists.”   

 

I wondered which one of my New Calvinist buddies would fall for the trap laid in yesterday’s “Objective Gospel” post. The prize goes to Westminster graduate Randy Seiver, our most notable member of the PPT peanut gallery:

From everything I have read, that is a total perversion of what NC teach. In fact, it appears to be the precise opposite of what they believe and teach. When are you going to begin to produce citations that demonstrate that your claims are true? I will stand firmly with you if you can convince me one of these guys is teaching that our obedience in sanctification has anything to do with justification.

First, let’s start by reviewing my thesis of yesterday’s post. In my continual endeavor to make New Calvinism easy to understand, I presented the following formula: the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) is also extended to sanctification by New Calvinists, while letting people assume they are only talking about justification. But since they also believe the two are the same, they are talking about both when they are talking about justification. They also use deceptive word choices. “Gospel,” is really “righteousness.” Simply put, they believe the righteousness of God also remains completely outside of us in sanctification after we are saved. And they engage in deliberate deception accordingly. Four of their deceptive communication techniques were discussed in the first post. The thesis: a strong contention can be leveled against New Calvinism by forcing them to explain how the righteousness obtained in justification REMAINS completely outside of us after salvation. You then have to disallow them to move the conversation back to an assumed orthodox view of justification as a diversion. All of this harkens back nicely to yesterday’s repost from the Pedestrian Christian blog.  I truly believe that New Calvinists are a classic example of what was exegeted there.

Secondly, I also want to back up and establish the following: the New Calvinist contention that COGOUS was the crux of the original Reformation, and that it has recently been rediscovered, came directly from the Australian Forum which was at the center of the Progressive Adventists movement. Also, COGOUS was the brainchild of the Forum as well.  Conclusion: Piper, Mohler, Devers, DeYoung, et al, are really just a bunch of Progressive Adventists. That’s just fact.

On that point, I am woefully indebted  to a couple of readers for introducing me to the writings of John H. Armstrong. He traces his own lost Reformation/COGOUS mentality, as well as others, directly back to the Forum and even cites quotations from their theological journal. (The Truth About New Calvinism; pages 63, 64, 65, 154, 155). In one his articles, he states the following:

The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.

Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.

In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.

The following is a graphic from that same article that Armstrong cites:

Get the picture? Underlying this doctrine is the idea that sanctification completes justification. If that’s true, we would agree with the forum’s contention: you can’t complete justification by infusing grace/righteousness into the believer because it makes the continued process of justification imperfect. “It is making sanctification the grounds of your justification” to quote New Calvinist phraseology. The reverse is true from the perspective of their doctrine; sanctification flows from justification and both must be a total work of God. Remember, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Right? “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” right? To infuse righteousness/grace into the believer in any way is to make him/her a participant in completing justification. The Forum believed that this was the crux of the Reformation. Therefore, the Forum came up with a systematic theology that could present sanctification as finishing justification with our participation limited to faith only like justification, lest we be a participant in being justified. And that is the doctrine inherited by New Calvinists.

Now, let me demonstrate that this drives the theology of the well-known New Calvinist John Piper. When one of the core four of the Australian Forum, Graeme Goldsworthy, did a series of lectures at Southern Seminary, Piper wrote an article about the lectures on his Desiring God blog. In that article, he concurs with Goldsworthy that COGOUS was the crux of the Reformation and any other doctrine puts one’s soul in peril. The following citations are from chapter 4 of TTANC:

In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this ‘upside down’ gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.

This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel.

When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel [emphasis Piper’s—not this author].

This view of “Reformation” doctrine also forced the Forum to come up with an explanation for the new birth not being part of the gospel. The whole, “You must be born again” idea obviously poses huge problems for the rejection of an “infused grace” in the believer. That’s why the Forum rejected the new birth as part of the gospel. In fact, another member of the Forum’s core four, Geoffrey Paxton, wrote a controversial article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” In another article written by Goldsworthy in the Forum’s journal, he footnotes Paxton’s article to show agreement. And guess what? Well known New Calvinists concur. Consider the following quotations including that of well known New Calvinist Michael Horton from page 106 of TTANC:

It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.

~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)

But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?

~ Michael Horton

And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).

~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)

Now, in conclusion, I will answer Seiver’s challenge with these quotes from contemporary New Calvinists that are cited on page 94 of TTANC:

Author: What do you think the unique theological findings of the Forum were in light of history? Robert Brinsmead: “Definitely the centrality and all sufficiency of the objective gospel understood as an historical rather than an experiential event, something wholly objective rather than subjective – an outside of me event and the efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness.”

When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel

~John Piper

Thus, it will inevitably lead not to self-examination that leads us to despair of ourselves and seek Christ alone outside of us, but to a labyrinth of self-absorption.

~ Michael Horton

So what does this objective Gospel look like? Most importantly, it is outside of us.

~ Tullian Tchividjian

The blessings of the gospel come to us from outside of us and down to us.

~ John Fonville

If we happen to say No to one self-destructive behavior, our self-absorption will merely express itself in another, perhaps less obvious, form of self-destruction. Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses. He was tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin. We need help from outside ourselves—and he helps.

~ David Powlison

Come now Randy, and make good your promise to stand with me if I provide proof. Susan and I live in a church with plenty of rooms. You could fly out here with your lovely wife and consummate your beautiful  repentance from the evils of New Calvinism and Seventh-Day Adventism. We will have song and dance, and serve you breakfast in bed every morning. Not only that, we have everything needed here to put together a promotional program to make you the converted liaison to the New Calvinists. It could be huge!

paul

From The Pedestrian Christian Blog:

 

 

Church Discipline from Matthew 18: How Some Reformed Folks Are Getting It Wrong And Injuring Others. It Is Not about Determining Who Is and Is Not a Christian, It Is about a Member’s Relationship with a Local Body of Believers

The #1 Means Through Which Doctrinal Error Enters the Church? Orthodoxy (or Orthodox False Teachers)!

 

 

The #1 Means Through Which Doctrinal Error Enters the Church? Orthodoxy (or Orthodox False Teachers)!