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 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

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

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

“….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

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

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

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

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

“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