Paul's Passing Thoughts

But Peter, They’re Not Really Calvinist! An Open Letter To Peter Lumpkins

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on August 19, 2011

Dear Peter,

I write to you as a fellow Southern Baptist.

I think real Calvinism has brought good things to Southern Baptists, but I just wanted to write you and mention that your present contention is not with real Calvinism.

They call themselves Calvinists, but that’s a lie. In fact, real Calvinists contend against them. Let me explain. The present movement you see in the SBC has a Calvinism label, but was really hatched by Jon Zens and a Seventh-day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead created a project called the Australian Forum to promote the doctrine, and the two other primary contributors were Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Their family tree, a work of mine with the help of others, can be seen in the following chart:

The basic frame of the doctrine they created is known as the centrality of the objective gospel (COG), and is what drives the present movement you see in the SBC. Apparently, the movement is now known as “New Calvinism,” and entails the T4G, The Gospel Coalition, and many, many other organizations that promote the movement.

Basically, it teaches that the gospel is something completely outside of us (objective), and that we are transformed by contemplating the depths of the gospel (or as John Piper states it: “Beholding as a way of becoming”). This outside, objective focus supposedly aids us in not being distracted by things that are subjective; for instance, even the belief that we are born again. In fact, the movement denies the significance of the new birth and teaches that Christians are still totally depraved. This can be illustrated by the video circulating on the Web called “John Piper is Bad” which doesn’t mean Piper is a cool guy, but rather that he is still a “T” in TULIP—totally depraved. Unlike real Calvinism, it projects TULIP onto sanctification as well. Piper acknowledged in an interview that he understood the video to mean exactly that and also agreed with it. Certainly, traditional Calvinism does not believe that Christians are still totally depraved.

In other words, the movement only recognizes justification (objective) and not the vital union or the new birth (subjective). We are supposedly transformed by focusing on the historical Christ event alone. This is why CJ Mahaney, one of the “core four” with Al Mohler in the T4G, always presents the gospel in the five-word epigram “Christ died for our sins.” In like manner, Piper presents a justification only gospel in “The gospel in 6 Minutes: “In a sentence….That’s the gospel.”

In 2008, one of the Australian 3, Graeme Goldsworthy, spoke at Southern Seminary (in the Australian Forum’s theological journal “Present Truth,” both Paxton and Goldsworthy declared the new birth a “false gospel”). John Piper reviewed Goldsworthy’s visit/lecture in an article posted on his Desiring God website (Piper is one of the keynote speakers at the 2012 T4G). In that article, Piper affirmed COG, and wrote the following:

“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 his, not mine].”

This is an interesting statement considering that Southern Baptists certainly change emphasis to our role as new creatures after we are saved. Piper is saying to do so is to put one’s soul in peril, and this is also exactly what the AF3 propagated. Furthermore, Piper seems to be saying that any emphasis on the work of Christ inside of us is a false gospel—also what the AF3 advocated. Peter, trust me, this problem is way bigger than Calvinism.

In addition, real Calvinist have fought this problem tooth and nail. As you can see from their family tree, the doctrine was repackaged by Dr. John Miller in the form of Sonship Theology while he was at Westminster Seminary. Pastors in the PCA (Calvin’s denomination) have been fighting the doctrine for years, especially Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book against it in 1999. Tim Keller, a major figure in the New Calvinist movement, as well as David Powlison, were followers of John Miller. During a lecture at John Piper’s church, Powlison called Miller his mentor and chastised Adams for being critical of Dr. Miller for coining the phrase, “We must preach the gospel [justification] to ourselves everyday.” However, the fact that the criticism was in book form seemed to have slipped Powlison’s mind. Moreover, readers of my blog, one of which is taking the Sonship course presently, assure me that Sonship clearly teaches the total depravity of the saints, rejects the new birth, and holds to a New Covenant Theology view of the law. It is also common knowledge that Keller has taught Sonship Theology extensively.

It’s all the same doctrine. If the doctrine hadn’t found new life at Westminster, it wouldn’t have survived the brutal pushback by Reformed Baptist (more real Calvinist) such as Walter Chantry. Chantry and others adamantly called it out for what it is: “neo-antinomianism.” In the same way that COG plagued the Reformed Baptist by splitting churches and families, this doctrine continues to wreak havoc on God’s people.

Peter, worry about the real Calvinist later—these guys must go!

 

paul

69 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. TurretinFan said, on August 31, 2011 at 5:43 PM

    Paul:

    I think it is safe to say that Remi isn’t particularly interested in whether the Calvinists are new Calvinists or old Calvinists. Perhaps you’ve already detected that in his posts. He’s just here to badmouth Dr. White.

    -TurretinFan

    Like

    • pauldohse said, on August 31, 2011 at 5:51 PM

      TF,

      So he doesn’t like OC either. Well, if the new came from the old, he may have a point.

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  2. Nick Schoeneberger said, on August 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

    Paul, could you give a brief summary of what you are saying is wrong with the NC doctrine on sanctification and contrast that as simply as possible with what you believe is the correct doctrine? Is your view of the correct doctrine based on “old” Calvinism or just a specific biblical reading? I’ve looked through a few of your blog posts and I’m frankly a bit unfamiliar with some of the ideas you’re communicating so I would appreciate a summary – or perhaps you’ve done such a post and I missed it and you could link to it in a comment.

    Like

    • pauldohse said, on August 31, 2011 at 6:36 PM

      Nick,

      NC is sanctification by faith alone. My view of sanctification is a literal reading of 2Peter 1 and Eph 4

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  3. TurretinFan said, on August 31, 2011 at 5:58 PM

    Paul:

    I wrote: “Sanctification isn’t based on merit …”

    So, no, I don’t see what you mean by “all of our efforts in sanctification become a merit for justification issue.”

    Our “efforts” are properly (i.e. technically) the result of sanctification, not the cause of it. It’s by God’s grace that we are enabled to die unto sin and live unto righteousness.

    -TurretinFan

    Like

    • pauldohse said, on August 31, 2011 at 6:39 PM

      TF,

      You identified the “merit” with Justification in answering my question–that’s where I got it.

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  4. Jenny said, on September 1, 2011 at 7:44 AM

    Is Micah Burke a believer? I’m not trying to be coy, I just can’t tell the difference from him and a lost person from his comments on here.

    Like

  5. Mark said, on September 1, 2011 at 9:38 AM

    Paul,

    James White is a Reformed Baptist holding to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. In a reply correcting a Roman Catholic apologist he quotes Robert Reymond approvingly on sanctification as follows.

    Sanctification is generally thought of as a process, and there is certainly a sense in which it is. But the New Testament often represents the Christian as one who has been sanctified, and therefore as one who has been definitively constituted in some way and on some basis holy (see Acts 20:32; 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11; Eph. 5:26; note the perfect tense of a`gia,zw, hagiazo in the first three references and the aorist tense in the last two references, as well as the numerous instances where Christians are called “saints” or “holy ones”). (Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Thomas Nelson, 1998, p. 756).

    Like


Leave a comment