John Piper Show and Tell
SHOW
TELL
For some strange reason, evangelicals continue to tolerate John Piper’s bizarre teachings—including the belief that Christians are still dead in trespasses and sins. However, and per the usual, he chooses his words very carefully so as to not come right out with stating it. Nevertheless, just in case you think he is speaking of the unregenerate, consider that he says: “….why you would call dead people to do things.” If he had the unregenerate in mind, this is certainly a strange choice of words. One might also think to himself: “Wasn’t Lazarus a believer?”
Furthermore, Piper shows his close kinship with Sonship Theology with the whole concept of “speaking life into people.”
And by the way, what’s the difference between what he is saying in the video and this description of metaphysical Christian Science: “In metaphysics the higher rules the lower. What we control in the spiritual realm will manifest in the physical. This process is done by seeing or speaking, affirmations. In the word faith philosophy words have power, they contain the force when spoken in faith…. The concept is to have it birthed in the spiritual realm first and then it will come about in the natural. As one takes the Scripture believing and confessing it the process of supernatural faith begins. One is to speak what they want into existence.”
And no John Piper verbiage would be complete without a direct contradiction to the plain sense of Scripture. He says we “can’t please God” when the apostle Paul makes it clear that we “make it our goal to please Him” and will be judged accordingly at the Bema Seat judgement.
paul
Paul, judging from what he said, he was obviously answering a question about justification. It sounds like the question is about how God can be completely sovereign and people still be held accountable for their rejection of the Gospel. He is saying that people who are apart from Christ are dead, and that through the preaching of the Gospel by the power of the Spirit, God brings people into life. There is no way to listen to that and think that he is speaking of sanctification.
Scott,
Give it up. You are dealing with a bitter idiot who doesn’t have the ability to reason.
Scott,
Obviously? So, we tell unbelievers to “DO THINGS”? Are you saying that Piper is just a bad communicator? What about the video “John Piper is Bad”? The point of the video is that John Piper is still a sinner instead of a new creature that no longer sins as a life pattern. When asked about the video in an interview he stated: “It’s true.” Besides Scott, in reference to his “The Gospel in 6 Minutes,” why do new creatures continually need justification? “Never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never think that the gospel is just for unbelievers….”
Oh, Hi Randy!
Listen to what he is saying in this video. He references Packer’s Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God. He talks about antinomy. The context here is evangelism. So what he means by do things is repent and believe the Gospel. If you want to address other videos, post them. The issue here is the video that you posted and your misinterpretation of it.
Scott,
His language is deliberately nuanced so that it can be interpreted either way. That’s what false teachers do.
> —–Original Message—– >
Scott,
I guess you are determine to find out for yourself. Save yourself a lot of grief. Don’t try to have a logical discussion with him. It is a lost cause.
Here is the full audio of the clip you just posted, context and all. Go about 12 minutes in and you can hear the question.
http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/commending-christ-q-a
The question is whether divine sovereignty and human responsibility’s relationship is inexplicable.
It is clear from the context provided by the full session link Scott provided that they are referring to “coming to repentance” / Justification and not Sanctification. I don’t think there’s anything ambiguous about that.
Nick and Scott,
He quotes Augustine, does he not? “Command what thy wilt , But grant what you wish.” When Augustine said that he was talking about sanctification. So again, is Piper merely a poor communicator? Furthermore–not once does he refer to the unregenerate–not once anywhere in his reply, but rather “humans.” He is deliberately ambiguous. Also, at the last part of the video, he talks about God’s sovereignty over decisions, what we are commanded, and ALL THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES IN-BETWEEN. Why would that apply to the unregenerate?
Paul,
Did you listen to the audio?
Scott, So what if the question was framed in regard to justification? SO WHAT? That’s not how Piper answered it.
> —–Original Message—– >
Paul, if you listen, this is about justification. To get to where you have gotten from this, you have to read into Piper’s words.
What you have to admit is that you took Piper out of context here. In your post, you do not comment that he was answering a question. You did not research to see what the question was. It would have taken you less than five minutes to find it.
Scott,
Piper routinely talks as if justification and sanctification are the same thing (because that’s what he believes). Your case is that because it was a justification question–gee whiz–everything in his answer must pertain to that. Again, I point to the Augustine quote. Again, why does Piper refer to the Bible as a whole? Again, why does he refer to “commands” instead of the gospel? He was talking about both, that’s why.
> —–Original Message—– >
Scott,
I tried to tell you and you wouldn’t listen. A person doesn’t believe what he says he believes. He believes what Paul in his infinite wisdom has decided he believes. He has decided I am a wicked antinomian who thinks unbelievers have not responsibility to obey in the process of sanctification…He is also convinced I don’t believe in regeneration and I could go on. If you would like to see what I really believe, I invite you to visit my page. http://www.new-covenant-theology.org.
Randy Seiver
BTW, you are right on and Paul is delusional.
Paul,
It doesn’t make any difference what Augustine was talking about. The issue is what was Piper talking about? You have to be brain dead to miss that he was talking about proclaiming the gospel to the unconverted and whether they have responsibility is they are dead. I told you you were losing it and you wouldn’t believe me. My wife thinks you are “Criminal Minds” scary. I have told you before and I am telling you again. Talk to your buddy Jay Adams and get some help. Your are off your rocker my friend.
Yawn
> —–Original Message—– >
“Paul, if you listen, this is about justification. To get to where you have gotten from this, you have to read into Piper’s words.
What you have to admit is that you took Piper out of context here. In your post, you do not comment that he was answering a question. You did not research to see what the question was. It would have taken you less than five minutes to find it.”
Guys, who is Piper’s audience? Piper is almost always talking to professing believers (mainly pastors!) in these venues. That is his main audience!
Mohler does this all the time in an opposite way with his culture war stuff…he talks about how bad people are in the culture but never makes it clear if he is talking about professing believers or not. So, why do we expect unbelievers to act like believers? I have never understood that.
Not only that Lydia, the Chandler clip is from the same Q and A at the same conference. After all of these guys trounced me about “reading into what Piper was really saying,” we have Chandler, sitting right next to him; for all practical purposes, saying that we are still dead in our trespasses and sins.This is why we don’t go to Susan’s (before we were married) church anymore. Finally, we said: “Hey look, we are saved already. We are not going to come to church to hear the gospel every Sunday–we are going were we can get some teaching.”
> —–Original Message—– >
So why are these “teachers of the Word” expecting “believers” to keep acting and thinking of themselves as unbelievers?
I left the seeker world over this same thing. Believe it or not, they are very close in thinking but have a totally different language. Sins are mere mistakes and no big deal. Sin more because Grace abounds! That is what they are really teaching aside from a “moralistic” Christianity of works. Oh, and God is never a God of Wrath. Sanctification or the indwelling Holy Spirit was never mentioned. About the only sin you could commit in the seeker world was to disagree with the pastor, publicly. And I am not speaking of one seeker church. I was doing consulting with many mega’s and saw the nasty underbelly of the whole system.
So, I went looking at the new Reformed movement because I thought they took God seriously and found them stuck at the cross never moving on to a new life in Christ. (Except for Christian hedonism which seems to be a clever replacement for the Holy Spirit?)
As I told my family when I left the seeker world: Salvation is free but sanctification is hard stuff. It is dying to self. It is brokeness and joy all mixed up together. I should sin less and less as I mature in Christ with the indwelling Holy Spirit…not stay depraved.
What do the NC folks do with the book of 1 John?
I have another view of this: If they preach total depravity AFTER being saved then it is easier to control people. You cannot control people who have the indwelling Holy Spirit and are growing in maturity in Christ. You cannot control people who are feasting on meat.
I came to see it as the same celebrity sin trap I saw in the seeker world. Fame, power, influence, money, etc. I think the NC gurus are catching up with the Rick Warren’s, Billy Hybels, etc. Do people have a clue how much money is in Christian marketing? It is a ton, folks. But the real sin trap is the influence and power. Being on stage.
Lydia, the Piper is not addressing the message to the audience. He is answering a question. This is not a sermon. It is a Q&A session. Seriously, you guys are letting your dislike of Piper drive you to false conclusions. Are there statements that he makes that need to be called into question? Sure, but what you think you hear in this video is not there.
Well then Scott, Matt Chandler took care of that: http://wp.me/pmd7S-SI
> —–Original Message—– >
Lydia,
I am not a defender of Piper. He is a fallible human being like the rest of us. Still, Scott is right. He was answering a question about whether we should command dead sinners to believe the gospel. Any good Calvinist, new or old, would have answered the same way. But you might want to consider reacting to statements you hear and not to what Paul [not the Apostle] tells you they are saying. Always ask yourself the question, “Did this person actually say what Paul has claimed?” Most of the time, you will find he has misrepresented the person he is criticizing.
Paul,
I have watched the Chandler video four times now and I have not yet heard him say we, believers, are “dead in trespasses and sins.” Could you please produce a written transcript of that video and point out where he makes that statement so we can all reject it as untrue? I heard him say we are wicked sinners redeemed by Christ and sinners still in need of grace, but with that I wholeheartedly agree. As I have told you so many times before, you need to produce actual quotes from these people, not just tell us what you think they are saying.
Randy,
I am not going to give these guys a pass because they say what they say in doublespeak and nuance. If they are unclear–that’s on them. Piper never refers to the unsaved or unregenerate in the video, but only “people.” And these guys constantly answer questions from the perspective of their own prisms. Piper’s favorite trick is to talk about justification, and then start referring to believers without a transition. An excellent example of this is his “Gopsel in 6 Minutes” video.
> —–Original Message—– >
Paul,
Piper was perfectly clear. You are muddled. Give it up and admit you were wrong. Listen to the question he was asked and perhaps even you can understand
Randy,
“Redeemed” doesn’t mean the same thing as “born again.” Redemption refers to us being purchased by Christ. Like all NC, Chandler denies the significance of the new birth. The Bible makes it clear: we are not “wicked sinners.” We are new creatures. His statement is blatantly anti-biblical.
> —–Original Message—– >
He’s ambiguous–that’s on him. If he uses the word “unsaved” or unregenerate” or “lost” once, I agree, but he didn’t and we all know why.
> —–Original Message—– >
Some profound thoughts Lydia. BTW–commands (according to NC) are meant to show us what we can’t do so to drive us back to the cross. And also show us what Christ did for us –leading to obedience flowing from gratitude. Supposedly.
> —–Original Message—– >
Listen to the question Paul. You ignored the context and the question. I don’t think you could be that stupid. You must just be stubborn. Obedience does flow from gratitude. Live with it.
“Lydia, the Piper is not addressing the message to the audience. He is answering a question. This is not a sermon. It is a Q&A session. Seriously, you guys are letting your dislike of Piper drive you to false conclusions. Are there statements that he makes that need to be called into question? Sure, but what you think you hear in this video is not there.”
Sorry guys, I was enamoured with Piper for a few years and listened to him all the time. I know what he teaches. I started really questioning him after a while. I remember being really freaked out at the silliness of “Christian Hedonism” and his “Scream of the Damned” sermon with CJ Mahaney at a conference a while back. But his absolute most bizarro world teaching was when he said that if a husband asked his wife to be involved in a threesome, she should say, “Honey, I really want you to be my leader but I cannot do that”. Huh? Help!
Uh…errr….I would counsel her that her husband is really totally depraved, not saved and she should go to the doctor immediately to be checked out. Then leave until he is on his knees in repentance. I will try to find the clip but it is interesting that no where in the clip does he say he is talking about Christians or not with this advice. And THAT makes a huge difference. But Piper’s audience for the clip were….Christians!
There are other things but I won’t go there for now. I will say I have family members who went to Piper to intern with him and the fruit of that has been bizarre.
“But you might want to consider reacting to statements you hear and not to what Paul [not the Apostle] tells you they are saying. Always ask yourself the question, “Did this person actually say what Paul has claimed?” Most of the time, you will find he has misrepresented the person he is criticizing.”
Nice try, Randy. I am no follower of any man or woman. I don’t do “guru’s” anymore. Jesus is my king. I follow Christ. I just found this blog a few days ago. I am just stunned that someone else sees it, too! I am not even a Calvinist so Paul would have other problems with me.
And I said this on another thread but will emphasize here that these guys should be clear on who they are talking about. Believers or unbelievers. They are paid to communicate the Word, clearly. I found this to be a huge problem with Mohler and his culture war writings. he never says if he is talking about Christians or not. He makes blanket statements about “people” and what they are doing that is wrong.
When Piper is talking about the husband who wants his wife to have a threesome, was he a professing believer or not? Piper never says.
Can you tell me why Piper is worried about this hypothetical woman’s submission to a creep but not the creeps salvation? He says the guy should be disciplined by the church. Seriously? Has he never read 1 Corin 5?
Did it every occur to you that you might have a blind spot concerning these guys? I know I did for a while.
“BTW–commands (according to NC) are meant to show us what we can’t do so to drive us back to the cross. And also show us what Christ did for us –leading to obedience flowing from gratitude. Supposedly”
So, it is “Total Inability” AFTER we are Justified and have the indwelling Holy Spirit? I think not.
Lydia,
“Scream of the Damned”???????????? Tell me more! Sounds like post material.
> —–Original Message—– >
Lydia,
“Can you tell me why Piper is worried about this hypothetical woman’s submission to a creep but not the creeps salvation? He says the guy should be disciplined by the church. Seriously? Has he never read 1 Corin 5?
Lydia, this is curious as NC believe you can bring unbelievers up on church discipline. I have firsthand knowledge of this.
> —–Original Message—– >
Lydia,
I am not a follower of these guys. Virtually everything I hear from them I hear from Paul. That is the problem. I look at what Paul says they are saying and what I hear them saying in his quotes or videos and they don’t say what he says they are saying. He does the same with my beliefs. He tells me what I believe rather than listening to what I actually believe. Then he reacts to what he assumes I believe. He is bearing false witness against me at least, if not against them.
BTW, if you are not a Calvinist, why not?
For example, he has referred to me as a “wicked Antinomian.” Can you show or can he show any evidence of that? If he can, let him bring it forth. If not, then he should be disciplined by the church.
Lydia,
Please explain what is wrong with this statement: “Honey, I really want you to be my leader but I cannot do that”. My understanding of biblical submission is that wives are to be submissive to their husbands as part of their submission to Christ. This obtains unless and until the husband asks his wife to disobey Christ in obeying him. Then she must obey Christ rather than her husband.
Paul,
Was the regenerated Apostle Paul a sinner? Was Lydia wrong when she said she was a wicked sinner redeemed by the grace of God or something to that effect, did you take issue with her?
The term “redeemed” can refer to more than one aspect of Christ’s redemptive work. Actually, redemption refers not only to being purchased but to being set free by the payment of a ransom. But the term can be used generally of the entirety of Christ’s redeeming work, as in Redemption: Accomplished and Applied by John Murray. When I speak of being redeemed by Christ, that redemption includes everything he accomplished for me including implanting a new governing principle of life in my soul.
Paul, my problem with you is that you are a poor researcher. You do not do a good job of documenting your claims. Time after time you have misrepresented my views. Do your homework. Find quotes from these guys in which they say what you are claiming. If you can’t do that, don’t make your claims. I know how you have assumed you knew what I believe and virtually every time you got it wrong.
Give me a quote where Chandler denies the reality of the new birth. Don’t
“BTW, if you are not a Calvinist, why not?’
Perhaps because I only know Calvinism through Piper, Mahaney, Mohler, etc? What is Calvinism? Calvin was part of a state church, baptized babies and believed in the sacral system. That is certainly not who I am. Or do we just take certain parts of Calvin and claim that? Kind of confusing for someone checking into it as I did.
If it is TULIP, I question the way they present total depravity as total inability that lasts forever but keeping in mind I believe that salvation is a work of the Holy Spirit. I have more of a problem with limited atonement and the definition of election yet I do believe it and see Ephesians as the clear teaching.
Why not just call it Christianity? Why does some guy who was part of the petit council of Geneva where they regulated how many courses people could have for one meal, get the credit for what is of God?
What will we have in the future? Grudemism? Piperism? I have not read all the Institutes. Perhaps I will sometime soon.
Conversely, I do not believe we simply “accept Jesus into our heart”. Or that saying a sinner’s prayer lead to instant salvation as so many teach. Salvation is a supernatural act. But I am very involved in my sanctification.
Will the real Calvinism please stand up?:o)
Paul, “Scream of the Damned” was preached at the Resolve Conference a few years back. If I remember correctly, both Piper and Mahaney preached on that theme. Steve Camp wrote a blog post about it, too.
http://stevenjcamp.blogspot.com/2008/07/scream-of-damned-was-jesus-really.html
look at the comments. 153 comments on parsing what they meant. Sheesh!
I did, at the time, go to the Resolve website and listen to the sermons. I cannot find the link now. It may not still be online.
I thought they were being provacative and shock jocks at the time. Now, I am seeing it more clearly.
Randy, I am not going down a submission rabbit trail with you. But I would like for you to tell me if the pervert in Piper’s story is a professing believer or not? Do we assume it since Piper talks about discipline?
Start watching for this….do they make clear distinctions in who they are talking about when they speak? Believers or unbelievers. Many times I would listen and think…believers are doing these things? They think this is normal for a Born Again believer?????
“Find quotes from these guys in which they say what you are claiming. If you can’t do that, don’t make your claims. I know how you have assumed you knew what I believe and virtually every time you got it wrong.
Give me a quote where Chandler denies the reality of the new birth. Don’t”
Seriously? You want him to produce quotes of Chandler or Piper denying the New Birth? That is not how it works, my friend. Many times it is what they leave out that makes them false teachers. Anytime you present half a picture, it is not the whole “truth”. And that is what they do. They change definitions (I know how this works because I helped the seekers do it) and load the language and then appeal to human authority and their interpretations (experts or those they claim are specially anointed), then you circle the wagons. (Many are circling them for Mahaney right now)
My problem with Paul is that he has assumed that I believe many things I don’t believe. He never asks me what I believe; he tells me what I believe and then reacts to that. If he wants to show I believe something, all he needs to do is go to my website and find hard, fast quotes. I think you will find if you visit the site, everything is straight forward with no hidden agenda. Since I teach New Covenant Theology he asserts that I must be a New Calvinist and must have an affinity for people I don’t even know. Frankly, I don’t care much what these guys say. It really doesn’t affect me very much. What I do know is that if I believe something, you aren’t going to have to divine what I believe. You will be able to find many quotations to prove it.
If these guys believe that regeneration doesn’t occur, certainly they must have said something like that somewhere. I just want to see the evidence. If Paul can misrepresent my views so badly, I have to assume he is capable of misrepresenting theirs as well. This is especially true since I have have looked at statements and watched videos in which he claimed they were saying things they simply didn’t say.
Lydia,
That last post was mine.
Randy
Lydia,
If I don’t tell you I am white, do you assume, without any additional evidence, that I am black? I don’t think so. You can’t assume I don’t believe in the new birth simply because you don’t hear it in my message.
Randy
Actually, I quote Piper in a post as plainly saying that the new birth is not applicable to the objective gospel.
> —–Original Message—– >
I will say it again in order to supply a perfect example in regard to what Lydia is saying. Listen to the video, “The Gospel in 6 Minutes.” In his close, he is talking about a general call to salvation–then he starts talking in regard to how Christians are “strengthened” without any transition. The conclusion, without saying it because there is no transition, is that those who attempt to be strengthened in their Christian walk by anything other than the gospel– need to get saved. He says it without saying it by virtue of the missing transition. In my book–it’s deliberate deception.
> —–Original Message—– >
Randy, Walter Chantry and Rev. Al Martin called your daddy a “neo-antinomian” and the fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree.
> —–Original Message—– >
“He never asks me what I believe; he tells me what I believe and then reacts to that. If he wants to show I believe something, all he needs to do is go to my website and find hard, fast quotes.”
Randy, This is not really my fight. But I will ask; what brought you here? Was it to defend some of these guys and claim they are not teaching what Paul claims they are? I think Paul is right that they misrepresent sanctification and what it is. I went a step further and said they leave out the Holy Spirit because they are busy being the Holy Spirit for you. THEY want to convict you of your sin and keep you there. I think a big part of it is that they really don’t want people to mature in Christ because they won’t need them anymore or buy their books telling uswhat to believe.
I was stunned when I found this site. Someone who gets it! It is like a desert out here unless you are part of the adoring fan club of Piper, Mohler, etc. I call them the Calvinistas. Especially where I live. It is the big thing and taking over many churches covertly. The seminary (SBTS) is churning them out faster than Muslims have babies. They are of Driscoll. They are of Mahaney. They are of Piper. And they are fanatics.
But I can promise you that Paul and I probably disagree on some things. But that is not what this is about here. It is about the half picture of salvation they present to people. They do not come out and say, we are staying on Justification and there is no sanctifiction. It is silly to demand such quotes. It is what they consistently leave out and who their audience is. They are not street preachers. They are teaching mostly young pastors or wannabe pastors with heads full of mush! And these young men adore them to the point of fanaticism. It is like Mick Jagger for the Gospel set. The rise of the celebrity pastor is a fairly new thing when you look back on history. Yes, there were well known evangelist but we have reached a critical mass that is deafening. There are guru’s for the guru’s.
So, why did you come here? To defend Piper? New Covenant theology? I am not so sure doctrine is the big thing for these guys. I think it is a means to an end. I think it is more about celebrity, fame, influence, etc.Itis almost as if they believe they have discovered a new truth about Christ.
I think a lot of what we areseeing in the new Reformed movement and why it is sweeping our land is a backlash to the shallow focus of seeker and emergent movements. The “Jesus is my boyfriend” types. This is just my take. So many people I meet in it come from these backgrounds and are looking for a more serious doctrinal focus than 3 pt topical sermons week after week about having great sex . But alas, the NC talk about sex all the time, too!
The conversation of the emergents never went anywhere (Driscoll was emergent) and the seeker world is Christian entertainment on steriods. Also, everyone thinks NC is “intellectual” but I have never seen so much illogic in all my life. Special pleading, ad hominem attacks, redefining words, loaded language, specially anointed people with special knowledge, etc ad nauseum. And I thought the seekers were bad!
On a blog made up mainly of young SBC Reformed pastors, one young pastor, who is always right and very arrogant, said that Calvinism (New Calvinism) protects us from liberalism infesting our churches. . Huh? Has he never heard of the presbyterians as in PCUSA? I used to do quite a bit of business with their seminary here and I can tell you they are liberal Calvinists!
I told him that but he just pleaded that they were not “real Calvinists”. (he gets to define Calvinism FOR me)These guys are not being taught to think at all. They rely on the teaching of authortarianism to protect them in their positions. (The specially anointed)
And they play, ‘my expert is better than your expert’ all the time. They seek out mere humans for truth! That is what a lack of understanding sanctification with do for you. At first I was thrilled anyone wanted to talk doctrine at all after leaving the seeker world. But I came to see it was a grim trade.
I could give you example after example. Mainly that we ‘do not understand them’ or ‘do not read them in context’, etc.
See, you have to have “special knowledge” to follow this new religion. But it is only given to a few to explain to the rest of us.
“If I don’t tell you I am white, do you assume, without any additional evidence, that I am black? I don’t think so. You can’t assume I don’t believe in the new birth simply because you don’t hear it in my message.”
I have assumed something about you? I am here discussing the New Calvinists and what they teach and don’t teach. If I assumed something incorrectly about you, I am very sorry. What attracted you to this site?
yep.
> —–Original Message—– >
Lydia said:
“What attracted you to this site?”
ME! He has a crush on me that just won’t quit!
> —–Original Message—– >
http://crbcviews.blogspot.com/
Check this out…Fallacy of Fallacies by Tom Chantry..
“Objective” refers to that which is outside of and not dependent on my experience. It is true whether I experience it or not.
“Subjective” refers to that which enters into the realm of my experience.
Jesus secured my redemption on the cross. I was reconciled when he died. That was the objective reality, objective gospel long before I was regenerated. The new birth is not applicable to the objective gospel. That does not mean the new birth is not a reality in my subjective experience in the application of redemption. It simply means it was objectively accomplished apart from my subjective experience of it.
In reality, the new birth is not part of the gospel at all. It is clearly part of the application of redemption, but those are two decidedly different things. Nowhere does the gospel say that if you believe you will be born again. The gospel does say if you believe, you will be justified
Randy
Well, if that is the case, guess it is time for teaching on the proper man hug so there are no misunderstandings….
http://www.videojug.com/film/how-to-give-a-great-man-to-man-hug
Just to lighten things up a bit
Lydia,
My point about the black/white thing is that you can’t assume something about me by what I don’t say. There has to be some evidence.
Actually, I was looking for sites about NCT and found this guy who thinks he knows what he is talking about and doesn’t have a clue.
Randy
Paul,
My wife actually calls you “my whore.” Actually, it is that I don’t like to see anyone being misrepresented, least of all, ME
Randy
The new birth is what makes the gospel work, not the gospel.
For some reason, most of my comments are not being posted tonight.
Randy
Lydia,
Men have to pat each other when they hug, otherwise. . . . Well, you know
Randy
Lydia,
Did you ever get my website info?
Randy
I told you before that my only exposure to Zens was to meet him briefly on a mission trip in Mexico years ago. He is not my Daddy? And frankly, I don’ t give a rip what Walt or Al said, They are fallible human beings, who, incidently didn’t have a clue what they were talking about on this issue.
Randy
Lydia,
http://www.new-covenant-theology.org
Randy
Lydia,
Email me at rseiver1@hotmail.com
Randy
Lydia,
I have tried to answer your post about why I came here but it won’t post.
Randy
I came here looking for discussions of NCT. Paul quickly pigeonholed me as a New Calvinist. The truth is, I am an Old Calvinist and have no affinity for NC. That doesn’t matter to Paul. I knows what I believe even if it isn’t what I believe.
Randy
I can tell you that if I didn’t rethink my Calvinism after what I have been through the past 3 years–I would be nuts. Certainly not election, but for instance: “Christ alone”? In regard to whom? That sola has never been qualified. Does this pertain to justification only, sanctification, or both? What about the Father and the Holy Spirit?
> —–Original Message—– >
Lydia, ya, I checked it out. The information literally upset my stomach and I began to feel ill. I will be posting on it tomorrow.
> —–Original Message—– >
I am not defending NC. Frankly, I am pretty turned off by most of what is happening on the church scene in the U.S. I think Christianity today is Christianity astray. I just don’t appreciate people like Paul accusing me of things I don’t believe. He seldom responds to my questions. He accuses me of things I don’t believe. I must assume he does the same thing with others. He needs to convince me they really believe what he says they believe. The thing with Piper and calling on sinners who are dead to believe the gospel, turned into something Piper wasn’t saying is a great example. If you look at Packer’s “Evangelism and the Sov of God” it is clear the issue is the Sov of God and the responsibility of the unregenerate. It had nothing to do with what Paul was trying to turn it into.
Randy
Paul,
When it comes to Solo Cristo, don’t confuse accomplishment of redemption and basis of justification with God’s purpose and the application of redemption. Solo Cristo has to do with the basis of justification before God, not the purpose of God or the application of redemption.
Randy
Scream of the Damned video:
http://www.vimeo.com/5293162
Anonymous said, on September 1, 2011 at 10:08 pm
The new birth is what makes the gospel work, not the gospel.
Can someone provide some Scripture references for this and parse it out a bit? Aside from the obvious “Gospel Sanctification” stuff, has someone redefined “gospel” to mean something other than “good news”?
“My point about the black/white thing is that you can’t assume something about me by what I don’t say. There has to be some evidence”
Randy, I am becoming more and more confused about your position. I did go to your site. From my years of working with mega’s, I learned never to believe a “what we believe” statement. Even Rick Warren gets that one right. But what they do and teach on a regular basis and who they align themselves with is what I look at.
I am even more confused because in one statement you say you don’t like what many are teaching in the NC stuff but in another, you demand proof quotes of what we think they are teaching that is wrong. . (Which we have shown several places where what they teach is very confusing and questionable. The Piper video for one.). How can I show you a “quote” of what they consistently leave out? That is something you will have to discern from lots of listening and reading.
Another big lesson I learned all those years is that people have their favorite gurus and nothing one can show them will matter. If they don’t want to see it, they won’t. And most of it then becomes, ‘you have to prove it to me in a way I approve’. Well, I can only put it out there. If you don’t agree, fine. I consider it a duty to warn folks. I will say that it took me a while to see it. And it took me a while and witnessing some very evil stuff to see the proof of what are evil systems in the seeker world. And I thought I was pretty smart. Not. I was fooled for a long time and I was raised with the basic truths and should have known better.
BTW: I am not here to defend Paul. I do not even know him. I was simply floored that someone else see’s it and gets it. For that alone, he gets a gold star from me.
) Most people are so enamoured with Piper, Mohler, Dever, Mahaney, Driscoll, etc, they never question anything. This celebrity worship is a big problem.
“Can someone provide some Scripture references for this and parse it out a bit? Aside from the obvious “Gospel Sanctification” stuff, has someone redefined “gospel” to mean something other than “good news”?
Cindy, Good question. I have no idea what they mean by “Gospel” half the time. I have seen Gospel marriage, Gospel child rearing, Gospel adoption, Gospel smoking cessation classes, ad nauseum.
Good news marriage. Good news smoking cessation…..???
The seekers just slapped a plastic fish on their car and were done with it.
“What about the Father and the Holy Spirit?”
This is pivotal. It is the bottomline. One hardly ever hears of the function of Holy Spirit in clear terms from these guys.
One of the biggest red flags of a cultish system is when they play around with the Trinity.
Lydia,
You have to read more than my doctrinal statement. Read what I wrote and see if I consistently teach what you find in the statement.
The issue here is that whether you like the so called NC packaging or not, sanctification is through the gospel just as much as justification. You can’t be justified by grace and then pull yourself up by your own bootstraps in sanctification. Jesus accomplished it all by his death. He gave himself for us to purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works. Even the present ministry of the Spirit is his gift to the church, merited by his sacrificial work. Are we to be passive in the process of sanctification? Of course not!
Does the work of sanctification begin with our initiative and come to a right end by our efforts? No, it is God who works in us both to will and to do what pleases him.
My issue is that Paul continues to insist that I must believe Christians are totally depraved, that we are to be passive in sanctification, believers are under no law and may do what we please contrary to the revealed will of God. If that isn’t bearing false witness against one’s neighbor, I don’t know what is. And, if that is sin, then he is continuing impenitently in sin and needs to be disciplined by the church as a wicked person.
Cindy,
Of course the term gospel means good news. It is good news that God is in sovereign control of the universe, but that is not the gospel in the context in which I am using the term. The gospel is good news but everything that is good news is not the gospel in that sense.
Randy
Cindy,
What I am saying is that the gospel presentation is not “Believe and you will be regenerated.” It is regeneration that enables one to believe in the first place. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him Jn. 6:44. It is God’s work that makes the objective good news, subjective good news to us.
Randy
Randy,
I believe that because of the excessive loaded language and evasiveness, and the nature of this discussion, a person must be very clear about what they believe. If you use the label “NCT,” you must also define the camp with whom you identify. Are you of Zens (how much of the original stuff to you profess?), Zapel, Reisinger, Gaudreau, Wells, Hockner, or Gibson? Do you follow the Systematic Theology of NCT, or do you just find that it is your functional position of your working theology, and you don’t plug the word into a theology but just notice that your beliefs correspond with NCT? Could you be using the terminology and could you have adapted beliefs that started with Zens and be completely unaware of that fact (what I think Paul is getting at here with you)?
I my mother was born again into an evangelical system with which I participated, and I didn’t learn of the roots of that system and its origin until I was 38, long after I left it. It was mindblowing for me when I learned. I attended an aberrant church (evangelical, nondenominational) and had to suffer serious spiritual abuse and then leave before I was able to learn of their doctrinal system, beliefs, and history. If I had been given informed consent about their aberrant beliefs or even just some of their intramural ones, I would have never joined. I read Covenant Theology for several years before I was able to develop a working knowledge of it, its history and its leaders (because I had been a dispensationalist and was not brought up with any history or knowledge of Calvinism).
I read an article by Zens last night that deals with sanctification, and he uses the same terminology as Brinsmead and makes references through his terminology to Goldsworthy. He repeats their language as well as multiple references that state that sanctification must always begin with justification and that “Justification covers us.” I’ve read on the subject of sanctification at SoundOfGrace.org, and it is confusing because though Reisinger uses little to none of the phraseology of the New Calvinists, the site displays a whole long series in parts of Piper’s writings on sanctification. So what am I to assume there?
Given the nature of this discussion here at Paul’s blog, if someone here identifies themselves as a follower of NCT as you have identified yourself, it is imperative that a person understand what you believe about justification and sanctification. I learned in my twenties that much of my terminology and expression came from Lutheran theology, though I was not raised Lutheran and my tradition carried animosity for Lutherans. I didn’t know. Could it be possible that something similar might be true of you? That’s what Lydia wants to learn.
On another site recently, someone stated that if anyone wanted to understand his doctrine, those who were curious should read every comment that he’s written in the past year. Is that reasonable? What I see you saying is similar. That’s tough to do, too. Is it fair to Lydia to expect this of her when you are here and can answer her questions? She had to go to your site and study everything you’ve written? It may seem simple and readily evident to you, but it is not to us.
Thanks Cindy, I think you nailed it.
Randy, when you defend these guys, what else are we to think? Keep in mind that I am also working from a different frame of reference with these guys. I know how they parse words, redefine concepts, etc
Take Bruce Ware, for example. He will declare up front in a teaching: Jesus is equal in the Trinity.
But then, with his next 1000 words, he is teaching that Jesus is NOT equal in the Trinity. He does this by using lots of big words, mental gymnastics and verbosity. By the time he is done, the little stepford pastors are saying Jesus is equal….but…..they are parroting him.
These guys parse words, redefine meanings and use loaded language all the time. I am on the record saying that if Piper were not allowed to use adjectives, he could not operate at all. He would not have a successful ministry.
In fact, it takes a lot of work to analyze what they teach and see the error because so much of it is cognative dissonance. People do not really believe what they are ‘really” teaching. They argue they are NOT teaching it at all! It is uncanny. It is so deceptive that few catch it because it is always mixed with truth or leaves something out. I think it is based on cult of personality.
Lydia,
Another part of the difficulty may be that the people who teach this stuff don’t really know what it means themselves. They repeat what their professors or their favorite teachers have taught without having actually thought about the meanings very deeply, trusting their guides.
The NC Bruce Ware is an excellent example of someone who can give all of the right answers on the doctrinal questions, but then when you listen to what he says, he advocates something other than those straight answers (provided that he has given them). He says that the Father has supreme honor, power, and status in the Trinity, and that it is Jesus’ eternal status and “role” to do the bidding of the Father. But if I say that I believe that Ware, based up on 50 pages in his book, has indicated that Jesus has less honor, power, and status and that He is constrained from doing His own will without getting permission from the chief, Ware says that I’ve misrepresented him. (And I’m also supposed to forget that the only word in the NT Greek that translates into role is the word that is translated as “hypocrite,” a Greek transliteration into English.) I know that the real meaning he’s teaching is that Bruce Ware’s word is on par with the Gospel, and I’m not permitted to question him because it points out the huge holes in his argument. And by disagreeing, I’m disqualified as a Christian. I’m allowed to be a Berean if I don’t challenge the guru.
This is true of all of the NCs. And have you ever been moderated off of a New Covenant Theology blog? Uh… I have. Have you ever been told to stop a particular line of questioning on a NCT blog or have them delete your posts? I have. Do you know someone who has been met with these same things? I have. Have you ever had a self-proclaimed New Covenant Movement theologian tell people that he was going to “make you pay?” I got into trouble on a thread on Sound of Grace in 2008 because I said that the Bible didn’t advocate polygamy, and several there claimed that it was permissible under the New Covenant and for New Testament believers, not in the First Century but for today.
There’s plenty of cognitive dissonance to be had — because you are told one thing like it is a disclaimer, and then you see something very different played out in practice or in the full perspective of the whole teaching. It’s like being told that there is no such thing as the color blue, but Berlin’s “Blue Skies” is playing in the background, and the whole color scheme is indigo, royal, and cyan. But if you find that to be contradictory, you’re the problem, or you’re just not quite sophisticated enough to understand, poor thing.
Okay Randy,
You’ve defined what the Gospel does. What is the message exactly? What is it in terms of the rest of your theology, especially knowing what we know of these teachers, the roots of the movement, and some of its specific teachings?
Is it encapsulated as “God offers us forgiveness through Jesus Christ?” Is it that God saves us (aorist tense – past, present, future) all, and that is not necessarily limited to accepting Christ as Savior, saving us and keeping us, even if we are mature believers? If the Gospel is limited to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved,” and it is primarily a reference to becoming born again, as a believer for forty years, do I have to preach the gospel to myself every day? If I get born again and my status (my identity) becomes “justified,” do I really start with, behold and meditate on justification every day specifically, or do I move on from there because I am being conformed into the Image of Jesus, day by day? Does yesterday’s sanctification evaporate during the night so that I need to go back to justification to re-acquire it daily? Or do I latch on to justification/sanctification by specifically renouncing the OT Law and the Decalogue daily, and that is how I find justification? Can I get born again without specifically renouncing the OT Law and Decalogue, or does that happen by accepting grace through faith so that my flesh and its influences magically melt away? Can I really get born again if I don’t renounce the Ten Commandments? If I do pray to surrender to Jesus as my Lord and Savior, and I don’t renounce the Ten Commandments as applicable to me today (though they are not my primary guide), am I born again or just a lesser Christian – or just not fully embracing the truth, perhaps?
These are questions I have after developing a full understanding of NCT and the Systematic Theology of NCT. These ideas are contained in Piper’s article on sanctification that are displayed on Sound of Grace/Reisinger’s website. Zens’ biography/history article about the development of NCT identifies Reisinger as one of the first people to accept, validate and participate in NCT, and he does not disavow himself of Reisinger. Reisinger, to my knowledge, has not disavowed Zens.
With these considerations, do you understand why people do not just say, “Okay, Randy! We completely accept and believe what you’re saying”? The Gospel has come to mean 100 different things with even more implications. You may think it’s simple, but others have made it complicated. You identify yourself with some of these others. Do you not see that the burden rests with you to demonstrate what it is that you believe, even if many others are responsible for making it complicated?
Cindy,
I have written at length on these subjects and anyone who wishes can see what I believe. I don’t really feel I need to “reinvent the wheel” by answering all these questions in detail.
Let me try in 6 minutes JK [that seems to be the accepted amount of time for giving the gospel message] to state what I believe the gospel involves. First of all, one must establish a need for such a message. The good news is only good news in light of the bad news. The bad news is that we have two grave problems: 1. We [please understand "we" to refer to we, in a state of sinful nature] are guilty before God and condemned, 2. We are, by nature, averse to then things of God and hostile toward God himself. We habitually live for ourselves; we are under Satan’s dominion; we are dead toward God and alive toward sin. Left to ourselves, not only can we find no remedy for our plight, but have no desire to seek the remedy God has provided. God intended the gospel to remedy both these problems. To remedy the first, Christ died for us ["Us" now refers to us believers]. To remedy the second, we died with Christ to the dominion of sin. Both these accomplishments occurred objectively when Jesus died on the cross. They are applied subjectively when God the Father calls us effectually and the Holy Spirit washes us and renews us in what theologians call “regeneration.” The good news is not only that God will forgive our sins, past, present and future, thus giving a remedy for our guilt, but that he will transform our lives to be conformed to the image of his Son. The latter is God’s remedy for the second grave problem. Through union with Christ, [in my view, the most significant theme in the NT Scriptures]
believers will become partakers of all that Jesus was in his perfect humanity. God ensures that this will become a reality by working in us to give us the desire to please him and by giving us the ability to please him (Phil. 2:13). As a result of the Spirit’s work within us, we become involved in the process by obeying, praying for assistance, mortifying the deeds of the body etc.
The chief, though not the only, motivation for such obedience is gratitude for God’s redeeming work in Christ. The writer to the Hebrews put it this way, “let us have gratitude [be thankful] SO THAT we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear, “for our God is t a consuming fire.” I am grateful every day [at least if I am thinking and acting like a good Christian], that I am no longer under God’s wrath and no longer under sin’s cruel dominion. When I sin, [note I did not say if I sin], I am grateful for the gospel all over again. It is the same work of Christ that pardons my sins as a believer to restore my fellowship with God as pardoned my sins as an unbeliever and established my relationship with God. Both are good news.
Do I need this continually? Yes I do. The Manna in the desert was a type of Christ. The people of Israel were not to gather more than enough for each day. Each day then needed to gather more for that day. Christ is the living bread that came down from heaven. Jesus said, “Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds [the word means to munch on or graze on ] on me, will live because of me. (John 6:57). In other words, faith in Christ is not something I do once and get it over with. Faith in Christ is an ongoing activity. I believe that is why John describes true faith in the present tense and not the past tense. Do I literally “preach the gospel to myself everyday?” No. When I sin, am I grateful there is a great high priest at the Father’s right hand who, based on his finished work on the cross, is pleading my cause? You bet.
I hope I haven’t gone over my six minutes.
Relative to the Law questions, let me just say we don’t hate the Law or reject the Law. We just understand that Law, as covenant, belonged to Israel as a nation. Its purpose was to give sin the character of transgression. It could not justify, nor could it sanctify. That was not its purpose. Not only was that not its purpose in Israel’s experience; it is not to be its purpose in ours. It is because we are not under law, but under grace that sin will not have dominion over us (Romans 6:14). It is the grace of God that brings salvation that teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts and live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world. . . (Titus 2:11ff).
I hope that helped to clarify my position. If not, either ask me more questions or go to my website http://www.new-covenant-theology.org.
Cindy,
Perhaps it would help answer some of your questions to read, The Cross:The Heart of New Covenant Theology.
Randy
Randy, I looked back again at your original comment(s). I think that they also demonstrate why there is so much ambiguity. I also didn’t know that you were the “anonymous” who originally made the comment.
You say of the Gospel (beyond the literal term):
1. “God is in sovereign control of the universe” (no reference)
2. “The gospel is good news but everything that is good news is not the gospel in that sense.” For clarity, does this mean:
“The idea that God is in sovereign control of the universe, but everything that is good news is not necessarily about God being in sovereign control of the universe. What is it then?
3. You again tell us what the gospel is not: It is not “believe and you will be regenerated.”
4. You tell us that the gospel is about the debate of human agency vs God’s sovereignty through a vague defense of Calvinism (which I know because I’m familiar with the theology).
5. You offer John 6:44: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”
What I understand from this is that the Gospel is a collection of discussions that God is sovereign and there is no real human agency involved in coming unto the Son, though you have not told us what is entailed in coming unto the Son, except that we will be raised up in the last day. You actually state that the Gospel is not about regeneration, but it is unclear if you are talking about regeneration or the idea that belief doesn’t play a role in salvation (though this contradicts Scripture). Are you also stating that there is no regeneration?
I’m sure you don’t intend it, but a Jehovah’s Witness could offer this same definition of the Gospel because in attempting to defend God’s sovereignty, you’re too afraid to admit that the central message of the Gospel is about accepting and receiving Christ’s payment for our sins so that we can be translated into the Kingdom of God and out of the kingdom of this world which operates under the law of sin and death. God shed His own blood so that we could be redeemed from sin, and this is offered to us freely. You actually stripped Jesus right out of the Gospel of the Kingdom in these definitions because a profession in Calvinism has become more important than a profession in Jesus as Lord and Savior. And to receive that, it doesn’t matter if you are a Calvinist. In fact, Sproul used to quote a line from someone who said we are all Arminian when we get saved, we become semi-pelagian along the way, and when we are mature, we become Calvinist. But one need not understand any of that to respond to the wooing of the Holy Spirit and the message of the Word to receive Jesus.
I can summarize the Gospel in four words: Christ in Him Crucified. And I’ve summarized it here in one sentence, all according to what Paul has written Do you see the problem? After many words, you finally got to the words “God’s redeeming work in Christ.” Why was that not the first and most central thing? I had to wade through multiple points of theology first.
How is this different than what the New Calvinists teach? You’ve stated that you do not share their beliefs and that your way is different. What you intend and what you convey may be different. And you’ve offered a third, lengthy explanation as to why.
What have you offered here besides an invitation to study what you’ve written on your website and an initial definition of the Gospel that doesn’t even mention the name of Jesus. I’ve had to ask additional questions about the essentials. I have no reason to want to go to your site, and I actually now have some reason to not go there. Though I understand that you didn’t mean to convey it, I’ve learned that you actually downplay Jesus, and it is more important to follow a theology that pledges that God is sovereign than it is to understand who Jesus is or what He did on the Cross. That is not the germane message of your gospel. Why did that not come through on your first time through?
Do you see why people might find that confusing?
Lydia and Cindy,
The problem is that I have defined what I believe for Paul and he says, “No you don’t believe that, this is what you believe because you belong to blah blah blah.
Though Paul won’t accept this fact, I arrived at the term NCT over twenty years ago independently from Zens. I was not even aware that he had used the term until a couple of months ago I have had no association with him at all. I met him once and spoke to him for about five minutes twenty years ago. I have no association with or have I ever had any association with Brinsmead. I was involved with conferences on NCT with Dr. Gary Long and John Reisinger. Fred Zaspel was involved in some of these as well, though he and I were on different tracks. He is more of a Progressive Dispensationalist than I. The Cross: The Heart of NCT was something of a position paper for us back then. I came to the conclusions I have reached through the study of the text of Scripture.
I am not a NC. I didn’t find anything wrong with the Old Calvinism in the area of soteriology. Does that help to define who I am and where I am?
Randy
Cindy,
You wrote:
What I understand from this is that the Gospel is a collection of discussions that God is sovereign and there is no real human agency involved in coming unto the Son, though you have not told us what is entailed in coming unto the Son, except that we will be raised up in the last day. You actually state that the Gospel is not about regeneration, but it is unclear if you are talking about regeneration or the idea that belief doesn’t play a role in salvation (though this contradicts Scripture). Are you also stating that there is no regeneration?
You missed my point entirely. Read my later post. My point is that it is good news that God is in control. But, that is not the gospel. Everything that is good news is not gospel.
Of course, belief plays a role in salvation. It is the believer’s response to regeneration. Of course, there is regeneration. Read my book, What Makes the Gospel Work. You can see there what I believe.
Just read what I say and take it at face value. I am not trying to say anything other than what I actually say, no more, no less.
I had to post as anon because my posts under my name weren’t being posted.
Randy
Cindy,
I wasn’t trying to define the gospel. I don’t believe that the Sovereignty of God is the gospel. That was exactly my point. IT IS GOOD NEWS—-IT IS NOT THE GOSPEL. Everything that is good news to us is not the gospel. I don’t really thing that is a hard concept.
You asked me to define the gospel so I did. I think I mentioned the name of Jesus there. Maybe you should go check.
Randy
Cindy,
I only invited you to my site so you could find out what I believe rather than having to write it all again. I thought you really wanted to know. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Randy
Randy,
Can you send me some Costa Rican coffee? I’ve always wanted to taste it.
> —–Original Message—– >
Paul,
I wish I could but it would cost a king’s ransom to send it from here. Next time I come to the States I’ll send you a bag. Our favorite brand is Nosara.
Randy
Cindy,
I searched my explanation of the gospel for references to the Sovereignty of God and couldn’t find what you were talking about. Perhaps you could point out what you are referring to.
Randy
Cindy,
You asked how my views differ from NC. It is my understanding that they are not cessationists in the matter of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. I continue to be a cessationist. Apparently they are flooding the cities. I still really like the country.
Randy
Randy,
I don’t mean to be antagonistic, but I hoped to get you to think about these things a little differently. We are brethren in Christ, I believe, and I don’t question that. I celebrate that and give God glory in that. My questions are aimed at helping you understand a different viewpoint, not question your doctrine.
The Apostle Paul said this to the Corinthians (in chapter 11 of the second epistle; ESV):
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough.
The KJV calls it the simplicity of the Gospel.
I understand that, here on this blog, Paul (Dohse) is trying to help others understand this very subtle nature of the influences that have changed the way the ideas of the Australian Forum have affected how many Believers today understand the basics of the faith and the simplicity of the Gospel.
There is solid documentation that those at Westminster Theological Seminary were influenced by this, and one of those people who was there and was influenced was John Zens who pioneered the original ideas that are known today as the Systematic Theology and tenets of Faith of New Covenant Theology.
My own working theology and understanding and beliefs from Scripture look very much like NCT, I have participated with and labored in the faith along with Zens, some of Zens followers and many more of Reisinger’s followers, and others who just follow what looks like NCT. (I would gladly visit your blog to learn more, but I have a very good working knowledge of different variations of NCT and I understand its primary distinctions. I understand many practical secondary distinctions, too.)
But in concert with Paul’s concerns about NC, there are lots of really weird issues coming out of the formal NCT and from NC, and some of them are very common. Some of them are the history of the Presbyterian academic community. Some are coming from the Reformed Seventh Day Adventist movement and the overlap that they shared with these Presbyterians (who have trained many Reformed Baptists). There is also a neo-liberal influence there, too, that is very common to the people Paul has named.
I think that the grand challenge before all of us is to get refocused and to reiterate for ourselves what the heart of the Evangelical Christian message is and what it is not. If you’re at odds with what the NCs are pushing or even what Zens is pushing, that’s fantastic, and I would hope that this info here would push you on into an even stronger understanding and affirmation of your own doctrine and good doctrine.
But I think that another challenge here is to recognize that we need to look more deeply into what good doctrine really is — to return to orthodoxy (a “right opinion” about the Word) and what it tells us of justification and sanctification. Did we run Jesus out of the process in favor of a Systematic Theology, a tradition of men, the words of a teacher, or a special focus on a particular doctrine over the essentials of the faith? Do these things bring us closer together in our love for one another, or do they cause strife and factions? I’m challenged by these challenges, too. Do we contend for Christ and Him crucified? And are we contending for those things which are in the Word, clearly and plainly, far above the other details?
If we have those things in line and if we are in agreement, does it matter whether Lydia or Paul or I disagree if we affirm the essentials? There are problems in the history of the NCT movement. I would challenge you to consider those things so that you are not pulled away from the simplicity of the Gospel. That should bond us together in the love of Jesus, not cause us to be at odds. I want to affirm that.
Randy wrote:
You asked how my views differ from NC.
Randy,
My statement of asking how the way you first explained what the gospel was aimed at clarifying a statement you made that I found unclear. My statement “How does that differ” was a rhetorical question to point out that I found your explanation unclear. You are free to choose what you want, and I am not judging you. Just as I am, you are working out your salvation in fear and trembling. It should not matter what I think. The Spirit of God will either condemn your heart or will give you confidence towards God.
But I do encourage you took into the origins of NCT, and I hoped to get you to step back to see how many different versions of NCT there are and that some are more focused on the salient message of the Word than they are on an indentified Systematic Theology. No matter what our approach and understanding as Christians, the most clear part of our message should be that the sacrifice of Jesus offers us the forgiveness of sins. Whether a person is elect or not and how they understand that is not dependent on sharing that message with them. I don’t really care what the intramurals are as much as the central message that Jesus offers us forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ which delivers us and reunites us with our Creator. But we hear so many other things, and this is what concerns me.
Randy,
You are the one who stated that the Gospel was about the Sovereignty of God. I asked you to back that up with Scripture. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John repeat the phrase “the gospel (good news) of the Kingdom of God.” If you believe it is about sovereignty, there should be some passages in Scripture that teach us that.
Did you get that concept from the Word directly or from a Systematic Theology, or from a specific teacher? I asked because I found your initial comment confusing and inconsistent from my own understanding of the Gospel of the kingdom which I understand as the redemption that we are offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
You said it was about the sovereignty of God, not me. That was your idea. I was asking you to defend it.
Again, please note that I am asking a rhetorical question because you didn’t defend the idea from Scripture. We ought to be able to defend what we believe solidly from the Word.
I am familiar with dispensationalism, NCT, and standard Covenant Theology as well as the doctrines of Grace. I don’t need to know them. (I can probably defend them for you, but it’s not important to me.) But if you are going to offer that as an answer, you need to know where that belief comes from and how to defend it from Scripture, not from a doctrine. That’s my point.
Cindy,
I didn’t say that. I said it was good news that God is in control of the universe, but that is not the gospel in the context in which I am using the term. Go back and read what I said. BTW, I don’t mind if you question my teaching. If it is true, it will bear scrutiny.
Here is the statement Cindy:
Of course the term gospel means good news. It is good news that God is in sovereign control of the universe, BUT THAT IS NOT THE GOSPEL in the context in which I am using the term. The gospel is good news but everything that is good news [TRUTHS SUCH AS GOD'S SOVEREIGN CONTROL] is not the gospel in that sense.
Cindy,
I am certainly aware that there are many folks claiming NCT who have no understanding of the position. John Reisinger used to pray, “Lord, deliver us from our disciples.” I am not sure his prayers were answered. I just don’t think I should be lumped with the loons because I helped define the position in the first place.
Randy,
If you use the same term as the loons and the loons defined the nuts and bolts of the doctrine and propagated it, then that is a risk that you take when you use that title, no?
If you helped define the position in the first place, did you capitulate to the loons or share ideas with them? Why didn’t you call your system something different? You could have avoided the label all together and become an Independent Baptist if that is your tradition, or you could have gone non-denominational and developed a presbytery.
There are many people out there who left Dispensationalism over the past 20 years because they found it intellectually unsatisfying. Where do you go then? You have to go to Covenant Theology. Do you have to accept everything about Covenant Theology? Look at the Covenant of Redemption which I find to be more like confabulated science fiction (forget the Covenant of Works/Grace stuff). Do you have to accept a Post-milliennial Second Coming? Do you have to be a preterist? Do you have to follow federalism?
There are lots of Reformed Baptists out there who don’t follow the ideas set forth in traditional Covenant Theology. If you’re not one of them, then fine.
If you’re not one of them and this stuff does not apply to you, why is it an issue? You follow NCT that is distinctly different from these early pioneers? If you think these other NCT guys are loons, then we likely agree.
But isn’t it interesting that NCT was influenced by the same root ideas as the New Calvinists? I spoke at a Bible college once and actually distributed something that was extensively adapted out of Present Truth magazine, and I accepted it because it came from a very orthodox Presby source. I am now thoroughly disgusted, and I don’t follow any of these people and refused to become a member of the Presby church. I interact with some well known people in NCT and the WTS affiliated. I interviewed Jon Zens on a radio program this year, and I’m on a board of special consultants with him. And you’re telling me that you’re not disturbed in the least that you may have assented or consented or been influenced by the work of aberrant Anglicans and a Seventh Day Adventist? I am very disturbed.
Change the name at least. Is that our fault?
I have actually thought about changing the name but can’t come up with anything better. Any suggestions? When I coined the term, I thought it pretty well summed up what we were trying to say. I honestly had no idea Zens had used the term earlier. I am not even sure he intended it in the same way as we did. In my view, they are the ones who need to change the name since some of them have departed from our original meaning. I spent many years as a Reformed Baptist but was never satisfied by their Covenant system. In my view, it is contrary to Baptist principles for one thing. I don’t think I was influenced by anyone other than classic commentators who had no affinity for what is now being called New Calvinism.
I have yet to be convinced that Piper, and some of these other guys even embrace NCT as we intended. If the WTS guys embrace it, then they have ceased to be Presbyterian and I can’t imagine WTS allowing them to continue in such a case. You are probably better informed about this than I. Perhaps you can inform me.
Randy
Cindy,
Did you see the post above about the gospel and what I actually said? And do you now understand?
BTW Cindy,
I have never read Present Truth Mag. and I don’t know what aberrant Anglicans you are referring to. Perhaps you could be less cryptic. If anything, I was influenced by a Dispensationalist who had rejected the majority of the Dispensationalist system. In the final analysis, who knows where all our influences have come from?
Randy
Randy,
About WTS — wake up and smell the coffee.
WTS has been rife with problems for 40 years. Paul Elliott claims that they taught Gadamer’s hermeneutics there (think emergent church theology), Norm Shepherd’s controversial teachings on faith and works, Dick Gaffin teaches that Jesus had to be justified after his incarnation because he became a man… And they definitely appealed to the Austrialian Forum/COG doctrine to a certain extent. Some goes back to the controversies that played out or were playing out at Princeton when people left to found WTS.
Randy,
I asked that someone define the term “gospel” in the statement that I quoted which appeared as a single sentence in a single post. It made little sense to me, so I asked for someone to more clearly define the statement.
I asserted that the word gospel has many meanings now, but what one is the best and the most true?
You explained that the gospel was all about God’s sovereignty, and I enumerated your points of explanation which defined it as being more about God’s sovereignty than anything else.
If Scripture is the only authoritative interpreter of Scripture, then what is the “Gospel”? Is it not the good news about the Kingdom of God? If it’s not, then I want to discern that from Scripture.
If that is a wrong approach to understanding “What is meant by ‘the Gospel,’” and we do not share the same method of figuring out what that means, then that is fine. So you proved my assertion that the gospel means many different things, and we have to be vigilant to discern those meanings because you used the term “gospel” in a way that differs from how it is used in the Books we call “The Gospels.” Are we talking about the Gospel or some other gospel. My point was to demonstrate that when we use terms other than how they are defined clearly in Scripture and what they reference in Scripture, then our hermeneutics are flawed.
Part of the problem with the Centrality of the Objective Gospel is a redefinition of terms and foundational principles concerning justification and sanctification through weak hermeneutics, so discerning those things are very important.
I guess it all depends on your standard. I’m sorry if I made any of that unclear.
Randy,
I am not being cryptic at all. If you go up to the header and click on it from here, you will go to the homepage. There is a block on the right with green text. It declares “Paul’s Passing Thoughts” as the “Gospel Sanctification Information Network.” The germane purpose for this blog is to tell people about the nature of the New Calvinism. The thesis here is that NCT and the New Calvinism was a product of the Australian Forum who published a journal in the ’70s called “Present Truth.” It was widely read among orthodox Presbyterians at the time, and it was very popular at WTS.
The journal was published by Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh Day Adventist who started to rethink his beliefs and latched on to Martin Luther. He was joined by two Anglicans, and the three of them formed the “Australian Forum.” But what seems to have gotten by the faculty at WTS was that “Present Truth” was a doctrine of the SDAs and was preached by both James and Ellen White. Shortly after they settled in MIchigan in the late 1800s, they started a publication called “Present Truth”!!!! And Zens extensively quotes Brinsmead in all of his foundational NCT arguments because the SDAs rejected the OT law and the Ten Commandments (but replaced them with legalism that they felt was necessary to earn salvation). Brinsmead’s work corresponds with the standard SDA doctrine in many cases.
That’s why Paul, the host here, keeps saying to you “Respect your elders.” His mission here is to help people realize the nature of the influence that this group has had on Evangelical Christians.
http://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/gospel-sanctification-and-sonship%E2%80%99s-gospel-driven-genealogy-part-3-new-calvinism%E2%80%99s-bad-seed/
I know all that crap. I am talking about the Anglican comment. Zens and Brinsmead had nothing to do with the branch of NCT I have been associated with.
Cindy,
You wrote:
I asserted that the word gospel has many meanings now, but what one is the best and the most true?
You explained that the gospel was all about God’s sovereignty, and I enumerated your points of explanation which defined it as being more about God’s sovereignty than anything else.
What have you been smokin’? I wrote nothing of the kind! I dare you to find such a post.
Of course it is good news of the Kingdom but it has nothing to do with an earthly kingdom for Israel. It is the kingdom established in the hearts of God’s elect through the redemptive work of Christ. That will ultimately blend into the eternal kingdom when God will be all in all
Randy, you ruled out human agency here and explained some of your beliefs about the Sovereignty of God, and this was in response to me asking how you defined the Gospel. In Scripture, this is the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, that individuals can be redeemed from sin through the Blood of Jesus Christ.
The message of the Gospel is to believe in Jesus Christ, confess that God raised Him from the dead, and the benefit of that is that you become a new creation in Christ Jesus, and we are made alive in Christ.
You never identified this as the Gospel until I asked 20 more questions. I asked them to demonstrate how these traditions of men (be they consistent with what the Australians, Piper, Zens or anyone else taught or not) have caused many to be lead astray through subtle deception because they lost sight of the simplicity of the Gospel: Receive redemption through the Blood of the Lamb, God’s free gift to you by grace through faith in Jesus, and you will be redeemed from the law of sin and death and translated into the Kingdom. That is the simplicity of the Gospel.
What you responded with was not simple but talked about many things that had to do with the Gospel. In earlier comments, you seemed to indicate that this was not the Gospel.
I find that confusing. And as I stated earlier, is this not proof of the problem? Unless we don’t agree that Scripture is the only aut
Randy Seiver said, on September 2, 2011 at 10:21 am
Cindy,
Of course the term gospel means good news. It is good news that God is in sovereign control of the universe, but that is not the gospel in the context in which I am using the term. The gospel is good news but everything that is good news is not the gospel in that sense.
Randy
Randy Seiver said, on September 2, 2011 at 10:26 am
Cindy,
What I am saying is that the gospel presentation is not “Believe and you will be regenerated.” It is regeneration that enables one to believe in the first place. No one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him Jn. 6:44. It is God’s work that makes the objective good news, subjective good news to us.
Randy
Cindy,
Certainly you can’t be that stupid. I was using an illustration of something that was good news but that wasn’t the gospel. READ THE STATEMENT!!!!!!!!! The Sovereign rule of God IS NOT THE GOSPEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But it is GOOD NEWS. EVERYTHING that is good news is NOT THE GOSPEL I am understanding why you people can’t understand Piper. You must be brain dead. If you can get that out of what I wrote you need to be locked up somewhere. Learn to read.
Cat on keyboard!
Randy, it may be that we don’t agree that Scripture itself should interpret itself (what I was trying to type in the previous comment). The only authoritative interpreter is Scripture. We may disagree on hermeneutics. We may disagree on definitions or how we can rightly use those terms from Scripture. I really don’t know where the disconnect is coming from, but I have tried to honor you as a fellow Believer and continue to do that.
Earlier, Lydia said that she became more confused the more she read of what you’ve written. I agree. I’ve devoted time here to try to communicate with you. I’m afraid that I’ve run out of time to devote to this, especially considering that the more I say, the less we seem to communicate. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result was the definition of insanity. So I’m breaking the cycle.
I am still confused about why you are frustrated that people do not understand that you are not affiliated with Zens and Reisinger if you use the exact same, very specific name that they do to describe what you state is a very different concept. You also stated earlier that you went on a missions trip and Zens was on it. That is an additional example of why there is additional confusion.
If you came up with a soft drink made of pomegranates and you called it Pepsi, does the burden of proof that demonstrates that your product is different fall to the consumer or to you? I think that it falls to you, and I think it is the same with your version of NCT. The burden of proof that you teach something different does not fall to those here on this blog to read and understand. It falls to you. Name it something different, and then you don’t have that burden to overcome. You seem to be saying that the burden belongs to those of us in this forum concerning the COG.
I’m also confused that if you realize that you don’t have anything to do with this other variety of NCT, then why are you participating in this discussion about the group that is affected by the Centrality of the Objective Gospel, as it was called by the “Aberrant Anglicans and their partner, the Seventh Day Adventist.” If you know nothing of these people and were not affected by them, and you were not in any way influenced by Zens or Reisinger or others affiliated with this movement, then why would you be upset by this or why would you want to defend it? (Earlier comments you made to Lydia and Paul seemed to me to defend it, and Lydia stated so.)
Earlier you stated:
Actually, I was looking for sites about NCT and found this guy who thinks he knows what he is talking about and doesn’t have a clue.
As interesting as it may be to others, I did not come here today to debate what NCT is or is not and whether your version of it is different or whether it compares to the COG. So I’m disengaging, because it appears that we have entirely different purposes here, and I didn’t understand that when I engaged you as “anonymous.” I wish to better discern the nature and origins of the the COG, and I will focus on that. May every blessing of the Kingdom and every good thing be yours.
Cindy
Cindy,
No doubt, WTS is a joke and has been nothing but a breeding ground for “new” ideas and theologies for years.
> —–Original Message—– >
Cindy,
I don’t really know what all of that was about. You need to focus. Concerning my statement you have so badly misinterpreted, perhaps it would help you to actually type it out word for word rather than cutting and pasting it. Then, maybe, you would actually read it. I don’t mind you disagreeing with what I write. I do mind you imputing ideas to me that have never entered my head. One of the rules for my web site is that people must state another person’s position to that person’s satisfaction before responding to it. I think that would be a good rule for this site. I am sure that will never fly here since the whole idea here is to distort what others believe, not to promote unity and truth.
BTW, I didn’t say I wasn’t affected by Reisinger. There again, you have misquoted me. I have been affected by many people as have we all. Please people, learn to read, listen and think.
Randy, None of the NCT crowd claim their daddy, Jon Zens because of his association with Brinsmead.
> —–Original Message—– >
I don’t claim him because I had no association with him. Like it or not, it is true.
R, So what if you only met him once. He’s still your daddy. He’s the father of NCT and you have a NCT blog. Doesn’t seem all that complicated to me.
> —–Original Message—– >
That is because you can’t think. I did not get my views from him and had no association with him.