2013 Brings New Resolution for TANC
Truth is, I never wanted any of this. I have always been just an average Joe who just loves the truth. I was saved in 1983 and thought I knew a lot until 1988 rolled in. God brought a major crisis into my life and a long distance teacher for the class: Jay Adams. I thought I knew even more, which I did, but had no idea how much more God wanted me to learn. In circa 2000, a new pastor replaced the founding pastor of Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. I was a longtime member there, former elder, and it was the church my children grew up in.
For six years, I chalked up the weirdness to a different preaching style. I deemed those who left because of the new preaching as former pastor following malcontents. I didn’t think much of the sudden influx of families from Emanuel Baptist Church in downtown Dayton. I had no idea that an orchestrated takeover was in motion. In 2006, the weirdness just got too intense and I realized that the very gospel that I thought I knew was being challenged. Basically, I guess my problem is that I believe words mean things, and the question was clear: had I been leading my family in a false gospel of some kind for twenty-three years? They posited that challenge—not me. Was I not to take it seriously?
I only wanted answers. I asked many questions, but clear answers were not forthcoming. They could have met with me and explained what was going on. But no, they knew what they were teaching was controversial. They knew that the theological elephant had to be fed to the congregation a bite at a time. Besides, their doctrine holds to the idea that “showing forth the gospel” alone brings about change. The congregation didn’t need to be taught doctrine—they just needed to be shown the glory of the gospel in everything that was taught and they would change without even realizing it.
Doctrinal discussion would be a quibbling about how the living water was filling their cups, and that would not be tolerated. Those who quibbled about doctrine were brought under “redemptive church discipline” which focuses on showing the doctrinally concerned subject how evil they are. There is only one issue—how depraved you are as set against God’s holiness. If they can get you to see that, the counseling/discipline will achieve its redemptive goal and you will be well on your way to daily salvation and perpetual justification so that you may “stand in the judgment.” This is why “Pastor” Kennedy told my daughter that my life was “full of sin and evil.” What sin and evil? Specifics don’t matter; I believed I also had some goodness within me—game over. I was living in Luther’s “glory story” and not the “cross story”—all bets were off.
I was confused. I couldn’t figure out what was going on. The tension between me and the elders was getting worse and worse and I didn’t know how to stop it. And no one else could figure it out either. So, in desperation and confusion, others threw all kinds of counsel at me in hopes something would hit the target. No matter how much I obeyed the elders and their counsel, more was demanded because I thought those things pleased the Lord. The fact that I thought I could please the Lord was the glory story—they had to get me out of that story and into the cross story. And they couldn’t tell me that because then they wouldn’t know if it was my doing or the Spirits doing. They needed to break my will. I needed to see that I couldn’t please the Lord. I needed to see that I must “live by the gospel.”
And sadly, I must admit, they probably thought, and still think, that they were acting in love. But Jim Jones thought he was acting in love as well. I was falling, falling, falling, and didn’t know how to stop it. The Spirit wasn’t telling me what they wanted me to know. I lost my wife of 24 years. I lost four years of living in the same house with my son. I lost my name and my reputation. I lost all of my friendships of 20-plus years connected with the church. Those who I had pastored thought that I probably committed adultery as the specifics of my “sins” were not announced when I was excommunicated.
The specific “sins” were not the issue; the issue was the fact that I thought I had some goodness within me. That is a sin that rises to the level of church discipline—it is the only sin that matters. These people call church discipline “redemptive” for a reason. Words mean things. So what if my friends of over twenty years thought I was an adulterer? What the Lord knew about me was much worse anyway. Right?
Sadly, as John Immel so eloquently articulated in last year’s TANC conference, logic can lead to the most heartless activity with a clear conscience. Recently, at a concert, I observed several young people there who I had taught back-in-the-day at the Chapel. We are talking about young adults in their twenties. I taught them when they were just children as the AWANA commander at the Chapel. One that I did not see there, Danny, had once fulfilled an elementary school assignment by writing that I was the non-family member in his life that he looked up to most. He would later write as a young man on a Facebook page during the incident that I was a deadbeat that abandoned his family. The elders were propagating ideas at informal membership gatherings that they would not verbalize to mediators that were trying to intervene. They have also refused to put the specifics of why I was excommunicated in writing. They have also refused to release the counseling records associated with the incident which should serve to vindicate them. But, people just wouldn’t understand that what I didn’t do isn’t the issue—the issue is the sin of thinking one has goodness within them.
In situations like this, the wounds are many faceted and difficult to document. In some ways, their Reformed forefathers were kinder by burning those who thought they had goodness within them at the stake—those who dared to posit a doctrine of glory versus Luther’s Theology of the Cross. The list could go on: those young people I saw at that concert consider me an enemy rather than a long-known confidant. Susan, my wife, and ministry partner, has lost several friends of 20+ years because of her support of this ministry. Friends are very important to Susan, and she doesn’t know any person other than me who has even set foot in Clearcreek Chapel’s building. False doctrine’s effect on life is truly incalculable.
Why? I did everything they wanting me to. I came back and allowed them to hold me hostage for four months. I even took the job that they wanted me to take. Why? Because I wanted to understand. I wouldn’t put 100% trust in the sultans of the cross story. I would not find absolution in them. That was my downfall.
Or was it a downfall? How else would I know why it happened? Because Protestant academics finally came along and taught me? Hardly. I now know because of my own intensive research over a six-year period. I had to know why. Now I know. This brings up an issue about me. I like challenges, but once I meet my goal, I tend to move on. The tenacity of my research was measured by the pain. I often hear people say, “Paul, this research just totally blows me away. What in the world drives all of this?” Answer: pain, and not understanding why it had to happen. But now I know why. And God has given me a wonderful new life with wonderful new friends—though fewer. The goal has been reached. And I have learned doctrinal things that I would have NEVER learned in seminary.
But now there is a new goal….the pain of others. Others need to know why. The new goal is founded in the emails I get:
Paul, we are all just walking around in our church [longtime members of over 20 years] like bewildered zombies. We don’t know what’s going on. Can you help us?
Yes I can. And you can be damn sure that as long as the Lord gives me breath, I will. I understand now, but will I walk away from those who were in my shoes almost six years ago? I will not. When it was apparent to me that I was well on my way to figuring all of this out, I tried to get other ministries and people with more credentials to take over so that I could go back to fishing. I even offered to give them all of my research that I used to write The Truth About New Calvinism. Long story short—that was an education in, and of itself. What prompted my meeting with church historian John Immel was also along these lines. Apparently, the Lord had different ideas. The meeting with Immel showed me that the road was not yet finished.
So, in 2013, TANC will,
1. Focus on educating doctrinally illiterate Protestants who are that way by Reformed ecclesiastic design. The fruit does not fall far from the Catholic tree.
2. Continue to articulate in better and better ways why Calvinism is a false gospel.
3. Network with others to expose the roots and causes of spiritual despotism.
4. Prevention: we have seen a progression of churches finding out that they have a New Calvinist applicant in the middle of the process rather than afterwards. The goal is an increase of instances where such applicants are weeded out by the pulpit committee before they are even considered.
5. Network with others to develop alternatives to Protestantism.
6. Call on others to help us, especially through the $5.00 box program.
7. Call on others to pray for us—that the Lord would be with us in a mighty way, and that we would not fear in seeing His power in this ministry.
Does the Lord want me to do this? Well, I am not one to speak for Him unless it is something specific in Scripture, but in light of what He has brought me through and what he has taught me in the process with opportunities to serve others to boot, I think so.
Nevertheless, here I go with all the strength that is in me, and if the Lord doesn’t want me to do it, He is certainly able to stop me.
But He will be the only one who can.
paul
Clearcreek’s Russ Kennedy and Southwood’s Jean Larroux III: The Divine Right of Philosopher Kings
Though in the title, Jean Larroux, pastor of the gutted Southwood Presbyterian Church (the subject of several articles here at PPT), has little to do with the crux of the issue to be discussed here. This post is in response to some requests by Southwood members to divulge information I have concerning alleged indiscretions unbecoming of a pastor. I obtained the information through an email by a person who identified _____-self. The information has been vetted and is credible for several reasons. I have not re-contacted the sender of the email, but could probably obtain even more confirmation points if deemed necessary. Where I am going with this will require the laying of some groundwork. Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio will supply some additional and helpful examples.
“Cult” is a word that is thrown around quite a bit in Christian circles, but in reality, for good reason. The essence of a cult is CONTROL. Cultwatch.com posits this definition of a cult:
The modern definition of a mind control cult is any group which employs mind control and deceptive recruiting techniques. In other words cults trick people into joining and coerce them into staying.
Cultism dates back to the cradle of civilization and is part and parcel with a basic concept that forms the philosophical infrastructure of all false religious groups. It begins with the presupposition that the masses are spiritually incompetent, and that preordained individuals are selected by God, the universe, or some other higher power to rule the masses on the behalf of that entity. Determinism is almost always a mainstay in said presupposition.
In the Platonist construct (which replaced mythology in these systems with a more scientific approach), the philosopher kings rule, the soldiers enforce the will of the kings (father [entity] knows best), and the masses are the producers who’s sum and substance of life is for the predetermined good of society as a whole. And the philosopher kings know best how to bring that about. And therefore, they should RULE the masses.
If at all possible, philosopher kings will use the sword and fear to keep the process running smoothly, but mind control, brainwashing, and indoctrination will always be present as the staple modus operandi. Such reduces the need for the sword, but the sword has the final say if necessary. The authority of the philosopher kings to send you to hell for eternity is also a strong incentive to live for the group or the whole, which is the “vision of the good.” So, job one is CONTROL.
This is the staple doctrine of EVERY religion that operates apart from truth, capital T. So, wherever truth is not practiced in religion, there is going to be a strong cultish feel in the mix. From a pure biblical perspective, the word is SECT, or SECTARIAN. These are groups who divide with UNTRUTH. So, a strong, very strong element of the cultish motif is lots of division. While cults maintain an operative core, it is at the expense of relationships and other human infrastructures. AND, the primary focus of the philosopher kings—where most of their energies will always be expended, is in maintaining CONTROL—leading to the cultish aura. Hence, “Hey Paul, we are going to this you fill in the blankchurch and I know this sounds crazy, but I think it’s a cult.” I don’t doubt it a bit. ANY system based on the spiritually enlightened ruling over the incompetent masses WILL have the cultish aura.
With all of that said, what about the moral fitness of the philosopher kings? Well, that depends on the particular gargantuan-faceted variances of this ancient principle, but for the most part, the moral fitness of the philosopher king is irrelevant. And throughout history, those who think otherwise and are vocal about it have become a rare breed. Ever heard of a guy named John the Baptist? Especially in Reformed circles where we are all totally depraved “sinners saved by grace,” and all being captive passengers on the Love Slime Boat, integrity doesn’t have relevance in regard to the spiritual caste system needed to lead the totally depraved safely to heaven. Those who don’t get it are mercilessly slaughtered for the sake of the group and the wellbeing of the whole. In America where John the Baptist types can’t be burned at the stake, hanged, or beheaded; slander, bogus church discipline, character assignation, and false criminal charges attempt to fill the gap in silencing detractors. Furthermore, antinomianism may be the very doctrine of the philosopher king to begin with. This reality is known as the divine right of kings:
The divine right of kings, or divine-right theory of kingship, is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including (in the view of some, especially in Protestant countries) the Church. According to this doctrine, only God can judge an unjust king. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the king or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings).
Therefore, the formula: higher power >+ enlightened proxy rulers >+ totally depraved = spiritual caste system = control = cultism = sectarianism = tyranny.
Let’s talk about the operative core that philosopher kings/pastors/elders are able to keep intact. Many people are inclined towards cult atmospheres. Some people are just there for the social community of it all. They like the people, the parties, the events etc. Many people there may be of the same cultural mindset as well. TRUTH is low priority—they hold to the doctrine of the leaders for the sake of community. A second group to consider are those who are simply adverse to change. Normality and business as usual is very important to them. Things would have to get pretty crazy before change would be considered. There is also a group that will follow whatever is placed in front of them. They simply have no discernment. Some know things aren’t right, but have been brainwashed into thinking that there isn’t anything better out there. Besides, to leave would also be admitting to complicity in unjust things that took place; things that are spawned by sectarianism. Finally, there are those who have totally bought into the doctrine. Dissenters who care enough about the truth to raise concerns are disposed with in one of several aforementioned methods.
But the bottom line is the following: churches that function by a caste system are in continual damage control mode. Everything else is window dressing. Real ministry is not taking place. The elders spend all of their time indoctrinating. Again, CONTROL is job one. Sermons are not focused on Scriptural life-wisdom—the focus is indoctrination for control purposes. There is going to be a constant tension, and one reason for this follows:
The written word of God poses a huge problem for the religious caste systems that have plagued the world from the beginning of time—the spiritual elite ruling the masses on God’s behalf via supposed direct revelation and authority. As church historian John Immel notes: The problem is that God is not standing there beside them and confirming His agreement. Or is He? The superintended life manual of God, and its availability to the masses poses a huge problem for those who wish to rule over men: God is telling us what He is telling them, and the tendency is to think God knows more than they do.
And it is clear that God’s word speaks to the individual. The books of the Old Testament and the letters of the New address the whole congregation of the saints. Yes, there are leaders among God’s people, but they are obviously very accountable. There are no closed board meetings between God and church leaders. Luke wrote two letters, really a book in two parts, for the benefit of one person. Why? “….that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Paul Dohse: False Reformation; p. 97, TANC Publishers 2012).
This is where Clearcreek Chapel, the church that incited my journey into these matters, supplies a helpful example. The leadership of that church is in constant damage control mode. Their sermon and teaching modules are continually focused on indoctrination and authority. Even when I was last there (circa 2006), there was a climate of fear. Often, their choice of sermon topics are driven by the latest challenges to their doctrine. Apparently, the last episode was in September of this year, prompting a sermon series entitled, “Biblical Authority at The Chapel”:
And, I want to dispel one false, wicked slander about us and churches like us. We do not believe or teach or require absolute, unquestioning submission to the leadership of this church. Whatever you have been told; whatever bad experience you have had elsewhere, I plead with you to listen this morning to God’s word. So in what I am going to say this morning, I am trying to hover close to the Bible and build a Biblical understanding of authority in God’s Kingdom. Tonight, Pastor Dale will help us think about how we take these precepts, principles and patterns and institute Biblical governance and guidance in the church. [and at the pm service: “A recent criticism has been leveled that we at Clearcreek Chapel engage in some sort of Christian mysticism.”].
No? They insist on “absolute, unquestioning submission” to “biblical authority.” BUT, they are the only ones that can properly interpret it! What’s the difference? As noted in the new publication of False Reformation (pp.110,111), another elder at Clearcreek plainly stated that personal study was only a supplement to efficacious elder preaching, and that the word came from God to the elders, then to the parishioner—back to the word, and then back to God with faith being the result. Clearly, the elders and the word are between the believers and God:
You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.
In the first part of the series, Kennedy makes it clear where the authority to interpret resides:
The New Testament often uses the word translated overseer or bishop. This word was primarily was used in the culture to refer to a governor who was sent by a conquering king to govern a city/state on behalf of the king. The overseer, the governor was to exercise oversight under the law the king had given. He was serving, not on his own behalf, but in the place of and for the good of the king. This is the term used for Elders. We are to govern the church on behalf of our King Jesus using the Scriptures as that which expresses His will and frames His wisdom. We are to govern and guide according to the Word of God.
But by the same token, these elders, and many others like them believe that all Scripture must interpreted in a way to yield a Christocentric (grace) meaning. Again, as noted in False Reformation (p. 100):
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis.
Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is.
Kennedy illustrates this in the same message via the following illustration.
Taken together, it is clearly a mystical approach that sees every verse in the Bible as redemptive, and a task that elders are only qualified to execute. This is spiritual cast that dates back to the beginning of time and always leads to tyranny. The point here is to clarify the divine rights of philosopher kings.
Now let’s address the ill behavior of Jean Larroux, and why it’s not relevant. First, the behavior. Jean Larroux’s outrageous behavior in the name of Christ is well documented. Larroux is the subject of chapter 8 in Cathleen Falsani’s “Sin Boldly.” Right, that’s the title of the book. It’s a treatise on, let’s sin more so grace may abound. According to Falsani, Larroux told her (in a conversation endowed with cursing and cigarette smoking) that the depths of grace can only be understood via the depths of our sinfulness. This is no less than the doctrine of the knowledge of good and evil that adorns the vast majority of tyrannical spiritual caste systems—especially Calvinism. This is the same Christocentric interpretation that the Clearcreek elders constantly refer to. All Scripture must be interpreted via God’s holiness as set against our wickedness. Obviously, if wisdom is the goal, and obedience puts us in a good light as opposed to endeavoring to understand our evil more and more; well, you do the math.
But there is something interesting about the writings of those, like Larroux, that think it better yet to actually practice evil as well to better understand grace; the disturbance of the conscience is clearly seen. However, it is usually seen as a vice to be overcome and related to an inept understanding of grace. On a blog belonging to a pastorate that preceded Southwood, Larroux writes the following:
I am becoming keenly aware of how little I actually believe the Gospel that I have been called to preach. I find it ‘easy’ to preach the truth, yet believing it is harder and harder.
Nevertheless, Larroux is a member of a prestigious club of Presbyterian philosopher kings—he is untouchable, and his sin is irrelevant to the Presbytery, and frankly, to most of the Presbyterian producers. I seriously doubt that many are unaware of the things revealed in the email I received, though heinous.
I receive many emails from hurting people who see this in the church and don’t know what to make of it. When you love the truth, it’s hard to get your mind around it. The email revelation will only build hope that someone will care with the enviable disappointment to follow, and deeper wounding.
Come out from among them. Where will you go? Go anywhere but back there. But wherever you end-up, Christ our brother will be with you, and our Helper will counsel you with powerful words from the Scriptures as you go.
All you lovers of the truth—Christ loves you, and for what it’s worth, I love you.
Forever His, and forever a yokefellow to the lovers of truth.
paul
Martha Peace’s Favorite Dish: Mutton
By their fruits we will know them. Christ did not say we would know them by their excellent teachings or their education; He said we would know them by what they do. Many of the highly touted leaders of our day are showing their true hearts, and it isn’t a heart for the sheep, it’s for their share of the mutton.
When it comes down to associations on the speaking/book/counseling/conference circuit, what pads one’s career and wallet/purse is the bottom line, not the welfare of the sheep. The idea that nationally visible teachers are in it for the welfare of the sheep is naïve, if not outright laughable.
Whether John MacArthur, Stuart Scott, Martha peace, Lou Priolo or anyone else you would like to name, they gleefully and eagerly network with serial sheep abusers and spiritual despots. Why? Because it’s not about the sheep, it’s about the mutton.
Lending credibility to spiritual tyrants and fellowshipping with them has become socially acceptable in the church. Somehow, these leaders are seen as several cuts above those who actually repented of their sins, like Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Baker. Sexual perversion is not yet completely acceptable for the spiritually enlightened (not yet), unless it’s an under the table perk as in the ABWE situation. But using church discipline as a weapon, holding people hostage at churches, and blatant character assassination is.
Martha Peace continues to network with Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. The leadership of that church is unreconciled with a slew of God’s people, and at least in my case, their outrageous abuse of my family is well documented. And the abuse continues behind the scenes as Martha Peace is completely indifferent to the suffering inflicted on people by this leadership. Not only that, she endorses it with her participation in their “counseling” program. Sure, she has probably bought into the whole gospel contemplation thing as a way to supposedly help people—that’s bad enough, but aiding and abetting abuse of the ones she is supposedly ministering to?
What’s that all about? It’s about the real Martha Peace. Vying for her share of the mutton, her favorite dish.
paul
What’s in a Video? Part One: MacArthur’s Fall
“CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent …. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.”
The promo video for this year’s 2012 Resolved Conference is sickening for anybody that can think for themselves. I use YouTube to post my videos, and have received comments from people there regarding the clip (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc):
Where is my barf bag? God, please deliver us from conferences and churches,
Kinda hokey. Just from the images…who do you think is being worshiped here?
For anybody who has any grey substance between their ears at all, it’s obvious who is being worshiped. But the video was not designed out of the figment of somebody’s imagination. The images and what is stated has meaning. I received the following comments on my blog concerning the light from heaven thing going on in the video:
Paul I am confused about the sparkly stuff that is falling down on these enlightened ones. Is this fairy dust?
That was very disturbing to watch.
What’s with the beams of light streaming down behind them and all the little snowflakes? It looks like they are trying to make them look like they are speaking to us from heaven or something…all ethereal and everything.
I was thinking of the same things you were about the fairy dust- strange indeed. Another thing to notice was the movie like ending of the promo- felt like I was about to watch the avengers or transformers. I guess that epic ending was to evoke a response of awe and wonder at the sheer excitement of seeing the “Christian” heros of modern evangelical movement. Next we will see them donned with capes and claim abilities of being able to see right through your depraved soul [actually, Mark Driscoll is making that claim of late].
But believe it or not, the “light from heaven” thing has meaning. Notice that the beams of light come down, but the little dots are going up. That’s the Gnostic cybernetic loop of how the totally depraved zombie sheep receive the truth of the gospel. The truth of the word is cycled from heaven through the spiritually enlightened elders. Farfetched? Well then, consider this statement from heretic/New Calvinist Dr. Devon Berry:
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
Berry was making the case throughout the particular message that sanctifying truth only comes through Reformed elders, a belief widely held among New Calvinists. And I believe that the coming down of light, and the going up of the dots are a subtle allusion to the direct connection that New Calvinists believe these men have with heaven that is efficacious to the evangelical peasantry. Other illusions to Gnosticism in this video will be mentioned in the forthcoming parts.
In all, MacArthur’s willingness to be a part of all of this speaks for itself. It is an endorsement of the worst kind of heresy (the fusion of justification and sanctification) and those who propagate it. MacArthur’s appearance at this conference illustrates his utter indifference to basic biblical principles; such as, the importance of reconciliation, justice, and the qualifications of elders. CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent. MacArthur also shows his true heart towards the spiritually abused and his total lack of compassion towards them. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.
The only thing in all of this that could be virtuous for MacArthur is the fact that this is the “Culmination” of the Resolved Conference. I strongly suspect that this is MacArthur’s way of gaining separation from Mahaney. But at the same time, it makes him a party to the concerted effort to protect the image of the New Calvinist movement which propagates a blatantly false gospel. It’s no accident that MacArthur is no longer invited to the T4G conference, and it is no accident that this conference (primarily sponsored by MacArthur’s church; ie, he has some control of it) is going to be terminated. Something is going on, but like the Piper controversy at Mac’s church, and the Mahaney controversy at RC Sproul’s church, nobody is talking. The image of the spiritual Camelot of our day must be protected. Gag.
paul
Open Letter from “Friend” Challenges PPT’s Tone
I love working from other people’s framework of thought to write articles because the outline is usually the most difficult to develop. The following comment (for all practical purposes an open letter) offers an opportunity for this sanctified laziness, and some long overdue clarification. First, the comment:
Paul,
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous. I can also make sense of your indignation with regard to your excommunication from Clearcreek Chapel, which you believe to be unjust. These are sensitive and provocative issues that naturally lend themselves to strong emotions. What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
If not–if you cannot deny that at the very least, the membership and leadership of Clearcreek Chapel PROCLAIM to believe in the gospel of Christ–then I must urge you to be mindful of the manner in which you discuss the men and women who so profess. Even if the leadership at that church has wronged you in the way they administered discipline, it is not your place to seek vengeance through the use of this blog. I anticipate that you will cite a desire to protect fellow believers from doctrinal error as a primary reason for your writing, and it may be so. Only God knows the heart. But whether that is your intention or not, I would strongly encourage you to transform the purpose of your blog from one of accusation and refutation to one of Spirit-enabled, Christ-centered, God-glorifying, constructive writing that seeks to edify others in all that it proclaims. Such an endeavor would leave little room for the derision that seems to characterize many of your posts.
As I said, perhaps you are entirely correct in your assessment of your dealings with the elders of Clearcreek Chapel. Let us assume that you are. Even still, because it is a church of professing believers, I urge you to remember that, as I’m sure you know, Ephesians calls us to practice “humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4)
Even among our enemies, this exhortation applies. I pray that the Spirit may persuade you to set aside grievances and instead to “bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them”, “live in harmony with one another”, “never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God”, and, “if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom. 12)
Please consider my encouragement.
Peace of God be with you.
A Friend
Let me take these well-organized/stated thoughts and reply to them:
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous.
Actually, New Calvinism is more than “fundamentally erroneous.” It is a false gospel that fuses justification and sanctification together making sanctification a virtual minefield for Christians to walk through on the way to a supposed judgment to determine a righteous standing. In sermons on “the golden chain of salvation,” John Piper speaks of participating in the “links” in just the right way. If we don’t, we are “making sanctification the ground of our justification.” Um, this is clearly works salvation by what New Calvinists would call “justification by faith alone.” But keep in mind, it is really sanctification by faith alone. And in essence, works salvation by faith alone because the two are fused. Their formula makes faith alone a WORK that maintains our justification—this is what makes it so deceptive, but deadly in every way.
The pastor of Clearcreek Chapel has said: “A separation of Justification and sanctification is an abomination.” What is an “abomination” is the New Calvinist formula that identifies certain things as works and non-works for use in sanctification, as if faith/belief is not human activity. When justification and sanctification are fused together, everything we do in sanctification relates back to our justification, making it works. In essence, we are maintaining our just standing by NOT making this, that, or the other a “ground for our justification.” This is a very clever false gospel. In fact, so clever, I must surmise that it was hatched from the pit of hell itself.
What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
No, and I say again, “no,” we should not “keep in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice…” What we need to keep in mind is the fact that such “wide range of disagreement” is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. This plays into the New Calvinist Emphasis hermeneutic. Many things are true, but the only thing that brings about meaningful results is what you “emphasize,” ie., the gospel. This is Platonist to the core. All other realities are shadows of the truth and inferior to the gospel, which as Clearcreek elder Chad Bresson has said: “is the measure of all reality.” Let me repeat that; the gospel is the “measure of ALL REALITY.” Add to that the following: Paul Washer has said that the gospel is a deeper knowledge that cannot be fully known, and never will be. New Calvinists have made themselves the gatekeepers of the higher knowledge—the only “objective truth completely outside of us.” This is Gnosticism on steroids.
Unity, I repeat, unity, ONLY comes from having the “one mind,” and that being the one mind of Christ, our Savior and Lord. A “wide range” of disagreement is to be avoided like the Bubonic Plague. Christ said to make disciples by observing “all that I have commanded.” If making disciples is only through the gospel, I am sure our Lord could have made that point. In fact, observe in the Gospels how often Christ talks about His own walk to the cross as compared to other subjects. The New Calvinists know this, which is why John Piper states that the only theme of a narrative is determined by its ending. Oh really? What a lame assertion in an attempt to make every verse in the Gospels about justification!
In regard to your next point, I strongly suspect that New Calvinist leaders are unregenerate false teachers. I believe John Piper is the premier false teacher of this day, with many following. And I have no reason to believe that the Clearcreek elders are regenerate, but have much reason to believe otherwise. I believe that Clearcreek parishioners who follow them (while not making any definitive judgment) should be treated “like” unbelievers. The whole Clearcreek assembly was confronted according to Matthew 18, but they continue to refuse to seek my forgiveness for a litany of gross sin against my family. Not owning sin is the mark of an unbeliever. For instance, they stand behind the Clearcreek elders in their written statement that is full of outrageous/untrue statements about me. This document was used to counsel my wife to divorce me. But yet, a copy of the document obtained by me includes my former wife’s copious notes which at various places clearly contradicts the accusations made by the elders.
Note in the below jpeg of the document that her copious notes contradict the most serious accusation: that I was not supplying for the basic needs of my family for a three-year period. She corrects that accusation by saying that we were not increasing our savings, or reducing debt (company debt that had nothing to do with personal debt), and that she had to help at times (from part-time cleaning jobs as she did an excellent job running our household full-time for 20 years). Furthermore, for any Clearcreek parishioner who has the guts to look at the evidence, I can supply financial records pertaining to the same three-year period that clearly shows the following: $700.00 dollars a week was direct deposited into Shirley’s personal checking account weekly by my company. This also included 100% medical coverage, and the company supplying all of my automobile and living expenses while I was traveling on company business (which was pretty much most of the time). In fact, as court documents show, Clearcreek’s attorney tried to contend against a motion made by my attorney to cancel alimony payments by claiming that I made $100,000.00 dollars in 2005.
I am not arguing that I was sinless, or that my family never struggled financially; I am arguing that a formal document giving my wife the green light to divorce me should be the epitome of truth in every word, and if it isn’t, they should be as big as the gospel they confess and make that right. They should at least confess indisputable sloppiness in this grave matter, not withstanding the casual mention of “misreading records” in the matter of my excommunication. A “misreading” attended by two elders who were supposedly counseling me!
Furthermore, the elders propagated the false accusation that I abandoned my family and moved to Fort Wayne Indiana while continually refusing to put the accusation in writing. This outrageous accusation was then furthered by many Clearcreek Parishioners such as Veronica Gelvin. Moreover, none of their accusations were repeated by my wife in her testimony before the guardian ad litem ordered by my attorney. Massive documentation that has been complied and archived reveals their accusations to be patently false. The refusal to repent of these outrageous sins committed against my family clearly reveals the utterly black heart of the Clearcreek assembly.
The Clearcreek elders and their following assembly pose a grave threat to God’s people. I have a duty to warn others with all zeal. In the future when it fits into my list of priories (and Lord willing), each and every Clearcreek parishioner will be entered into the Matthew 18 process, and if they do not repent, I will tell it to the church, and I will name names Publication1. I do not believe that Clearcreek parishioners bear the right to hide behind their vile leaders (each will be presented with this document).
Clearcreek is indicative of a huge problem that is growing in today’s church: the return back to Calvin’s Authority = Truth paradigm, and his heavy handed Geneva style leadership. Folks better wise up; the election/free will debate is not the major issue: spiritual tyranny and the philosophy/doctrine that drives it is the major issue. Whether the Southwood story, ABWE story, or my story, cries for justice fall on deaf ears Grace Partners 2. But yet our God is a God of justice. He warns us to take up the cause of those who are trodden down by oppressors. Until Clearcreek offers the slightest whimper of regret for the deep pain they have unrightfully inflicted on many people—here I stand, and I will not relent as long as the lover of our souls gives me breath. To Him be all glory, and I confess that I love Him with all of my heart. And thank you my dear friend for your concern, I pray that God will abundantly bless you.
And to you who stand silent and fellowship with Clearcreek as though they are innocent: shame on you. Shame.
paul
The New Blog Addition and Why
There is no doubt that God always brings good out of trials experienced by believers. But yet, we are also instructed to pray, “Deliver us from evil.” We are not to be anxious for anything, but are to make our supplications known to God. We are to pray that God’s will in heaven is done on Earth; and there isn’t much suffering going on up there. Even Christ prayed for the possibility that His cup of suffering might pass by without a partaking.
I love the song “If You Want Me To” by Ginny Owens. I only take exception to the idea that God “wants” us to suffer trials. I think it’s His will at times, but I am not sure He “wants” it. But I can tell you what He doesn’t want: evil. As Christians, we are to prevent it, shun it, and take up the cause of those who are victimized by it. God is a God of justice. Unbelieving image bearers that have the law of God written on their hearts will not even tolerate evil much of the time. How much more true should this be among Christians?
It has been an interesting journey for me since the first hint that something wasn’t right at my church home of twenty years. Five years later, I now have a clear picture of what happened and why. Sure, my own sin didn’t help the situation any, but be sure of this: my most grievous sin was that of ignorance. I wasn’t paying attention, and the cost was great. Well, God did bring much good out of it, but Christ didn’t come with an attitude that evil is good so that more grace can abound; He came to destroy the works of the devil.
Until now, I have focused primarily on the doctrine that glories in a deeper knowledge of our supposed worthlessness and depravity—making that the sum of our sanctification. To focus on that supposedly makes God bigger. A doctrine that embraces suffering as a good thing. A doctrine that propagates an indifference to injustice; after all, we are totally depraved and deserve to suffer. A doctrine that propagates unaccountable enlightened ones leading the Christian SpongeBob masses. I have done this and not focused directly on the “church” that sought to utterly destroy me for questioning their authority.
That now must change. Others have also recognized that remaining silent in order to not “make it about me” is not working out well, and lives continue to be decimated by ecclesiastical tyrants. Moreover, other leaders will not do anything because inherent in this doctrine is the “authority = truth” motif. I simply do not owe it to them to keep my silence and not use whatever gifts granted me to sound the alarm. I simply do not owe it to them to let others be led to the slaughter unawares. And as far as allowing them to present themselves as orthodox unabated: I don’t owe them that either.
I follow others who are doing the same; for example, http://joyfulexiles.com/. Others before us saw the light much sooner; for example http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/. Authority does not equal truth, and if the peers of today’s spiritual despots will not hold them accountable, our Lord God willing, we will.
Clearcreek Chapel Watch .wordpress.com or clearcreekchapel.com
New Calvinists Believe That Gospel Sanctification is the Only True Gospel: Want Proof?
The following is an email/comment sent to me by a New Calvinist that is of the New Covenant Theology species. His opinion about those who do not hold to sanctification by justification is evident. Also notice the either/or communication prism that they use to manipulate. It’s either all justification for purposes of sanctification, or all pride and disdain for Christ and His works.
Jesus Christ said the last days would be marked by antinomianism and that antinomianism would cause the hearts of many to be cold (Matthew 24:12; “because anomia will be increased”). And I can tell you, New Calvinists are among the most coldhearted people I have ever known, and I didn’t exactly grow up with the choir boys of society. Without further ado, here is the letter from one who is a part of the grace and mercy crowd:
Paul, you should just come out of the closet and write an article atriculating why you hate the Gospel and Jesus Christ so much. It is plain to all, based on your non-stop vitriol, that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is of no continuing value or worth to you in your “christian” life. In your mind, Christ and his Gospel only had one limited purpose – to bring legal justification. After that, no more purpose, no more daily power, no more continuing preciousness. The Gospel is behind you. The cross is behind you. The Son’s triumph is behind you. No need to return there to daily die with Him. You’ve ‘prayed the sinner’s prayer.’ Time to move on. You’re good now. You’re beyond the Gospel. And you show it.
Obedience is now all about you and your own determination to attain a sanctification that comes through your own legal efforts – sans the Gospel and Christ’s daily empowerment of grace. Repent Paul. You are in the gall of bitterness. To live for Christ is to live the crucified life, to daily die with Him – this is the Gospel centered life. And you are tragically missing it my friend. In fact, you are violently and proudly opposing it.
This note was sent in regard to the Dr. Devin Berry post. Being offended by that post is very telling—the idea that elder preaching is efficacious to spiritual growth and that our personal study only supplements it.
paul
Creepy Sermon by Dr. Devon Berry Indicative of New Calvinist Cultism
This is a repost on the New Calvinist concept of how to listen to a sermon. I used an example of a sermon preached by Dr. Devon Berry, an elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Berry is also an assistance professor of Psychiatry at the University of Cincinnati. This is creepy stuff, but nonetheless indicative of the kind of cultism being spawned across this country by New Calvinism.
How to listen to a sermon?
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermonis becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that "it" in his statement refers to God's word, not Paul's preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
How Paul’s Passing Thoughts Came About
There is no doubt that much of my Christian life will be defined by my stand against New Calvinism. Not long after I became a Christian, my life was providentially moving toward the establishment of this ministry.
Saved in late 1983 in Dallas, Texas, and baptized in the Southern Baptist church in 1984, I began to see serious contradictions between God’s word and what was going on in church. My perception did not come from a limited view; in my early years as a Christian, I went to a major seminary and taught in various types of ministries.
In 1989, I moved back to my hometown in Dayton, Ohio with my family, and living the Christian life according to biblical generalities had taken its toll. In 1990, and by God’s providence, I was led to Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio (a suburb of Dayton). Pastor John Street had implemented NANC (National Association of Nouthetic Counselors) counseling at the Chapel, and that counseling turned my life around. The Chapel also became a NANC counseling center for pastors. In 1994, I was asked to serve as an elder and accepted. I served as an elder for five years. At that time, elders were reconfirmed by a congregational vote every three years. I was confirmed by the congregation twice.
In 1997/98(?), “pastor” Russ Kennedy returned to the Chapel after leaving in controversy for a pastorate in Illinois. That was in the early 90’s, and he returned to the Chapel after (unknown to most at the Chapel) being dismissed from his post in Illinois. According to a family member and close friend of Kennedy, he was dismissed for plagiarizing a John Piper sermon. During the time of his return, DA Carson and Jerry Bridges were invited to speak at our church. I realize now that he was probably behind that. I was out of town when Carson spoke, but remember thinking that the following statement from Bridges was rather odd: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Though I thought the statement was odd, I brushed it aside and thought no more of it. Little did I know how much that little phrase would one day change my life!
Russ Kennedy was considered for eldership in 1999. In preparation for a forum to consider his appointment, he produced a sixteen-page booklet that outlined his doctrinal beliefs and philosophy of ministry. It is now evident, twelve years later, that he had totally bought into Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, and New Covenant Theology at that time. Reading the booklet presently, I can only shake my head in disbelief as I read what he stated on page six concerning sanctification: “I believe that every believer is sanctified (set apart) unto God by justification….” There it is: sanctification by justification—if it was a snake it would have bit me. He also stated that this sanctification is known as “progressive sanctification” which is the usual deceptive term used by New Calvinists to describe the unorthodox concept of progressive justification.
Kennedy was affirmed, and right away things started getting weird. In the first elder’s meeting he attended, I was immediately taken aback by his heavy-handed style of leadership. I had to insist that a softer approach be taken concerning a miscommunication between Chapel elders and some students we were supporting at Master’s Seminary; specifically, a phone call for clarification verses a formal letter of rebuke from the elders. Shortly thereafter, I stepped aside as an elder for personal reasons (1/10/1999), but continued to teach at the Chapel. During this same time, a group of men from Emmanuel Baptist church in Dayton, Ohio started showing up. Dale Evans, Chad Bresson, Greg Cook, and Tom Watkins. This also coincided with the announcement by John Street that he was leaving the Chapel for a ministry in California.
I am unaware of how Kennedy knew this group of men who came over from Emmanuel, but they were all of New Covenant Theology persuasion and followers of Chad Bresson. All of this group except for Watkins ended up being elders at the Chapel after John Street departed (2000). We should pause here and examine their mindset that set the table for events following. This is an excerpt from this ministry’s book, “The Truth About New Calvinism” page 131:
This whole Reformation motif was started by the Forum which taught that all doctrines either fall into the objective gospel or subjective experience. Subjective spirituality was supposedly spawned by Rome and resulted in a reversal of justification and sanctification. Therefore, the Reformers rediscovered the objective gospel which ignited the Reformation, and also taught that the job wasn’t done (semper reformanda), and you can imagine who contemporary New Calvinists think that duty has fallen to. This is all covered in chapter four along with documentation concerning the fact that John Piper, one of the “elder statesmen” of the New Calvinist movement agrees with that scenario. This us against them mentality was passed down from the Forum and blossoms in the movement to this very day. They are the children of the Reformers—we are Rome.
And this arrogance translates into a predominant characteristic of New Calvinism: heavy-handed leadership style. As far as New Calvinists are concerned, evangelicals have been leading people into hell for the past 100 years (their estimation of when semper reformanda was lost) and any interference with the “unadjusted gospel” will be dealt with—no holds barred.
And such was the case at Clearcreek Chapel. After John Street left, changes were swift and radical. Russ Kennedy was appointed to replace Street, but we were clueless as to what he really believed. The front doors of the Chapel had barely hit Street in the backside before a marked difference in the preaching was noticed. A friend of mine referred to it as “flyby preaching.” Many left the Chapel shortly thereafter because “things are getting weird,” but really didn’t know why. Eventually, even though the elder over adult education was part of the old guard and called on me to teach from time to time, I declined because of the open hostility towards my teachings from the Emmanuel crowd.
All in the same year: my mentor left; I stepped aside as an elder; stepped aside as a teacher; and found it difficult to wrap my mind around what was going on with the new leadership. I started investing more time at work and began traveling a lot, but still stayed connected to the Chapel body. In 2003, I began discussing a business partnership with two core members at the Chapel, Matt and Sheelah Beaver. About the same time, something strange happened. The aforementioned Greg Cook, who I never really related to well, and always felt uncomfortable around, offered to start meeting with me every Monday morning for breakfast to discuss business, and offer advice on being the sales manager for the company that was being formed by the Beavers and me. Not long after that, I started attending a Friday morning men’s fellowship, and upon my attendance, an elder by the name of Dan Turner also started attending. I began to notice a pattern—I was being monitored.
It is important to share this testimony about Clearcreek Chapel because it is typical of many New Calvinist churches and where they end up because of their mindset concerning semper reformanda. Frankly, they become cultish. In fact, as we shall see, Clearcreek Chapel possesses all eight points that constitute a cult by Cultwatch.com. The first point is Deception. Cultwatch says the following about the first point:
A cult needs to recruit and operate using deception. Why? Because if people knew their true practices and beliefs beforehand, then they would not join. A cult needs to hide the truth from you until they think you are ready to accept it.
New Calvinist leaders are not hasty to reveal to people that they believe the Reformation was about the “false gospel of the new birth” and that you are either with them or the Roman Catholics. Neither are they hasty to introduce their ministries as part of the original Reformation. It is clear that the Clearcreek elders spoon-fed the congregation over a number of years. When one member started raising questions about New Covenant Theology, a gag order was placed on him and he was told by elder Chad Bresson that NCT would be taught when the members “were ready.”
The second point is Exclusiveness. This speaks for itself. To say that New Calvinists believe they have an exclusive doctrine would be a gargantuan understatement. This mindset is fertile ground for cultism.
A third point described by Cultwatch is a Reporting Structure. The Chapel clearly had a reporting/monitoring structure—primarily through the elders, and I assume they still do. The Chapel has three times the number of elders that is prescribed by church consulting groups for a church their size. When I was a member there—it was clear that elders were used to monitor the congregation.
In 2004, I parted ways with the Beavers; they took the retail part of the company, and I took the service part and started my own company. That was the agreement. The separation was overseen by Greg Cook and all parties agreed to it. In 2006, I began redoubling my efforts to become closer to the Clearcreek Chapel “family.” I had a large tolerance for the ongoing weirdness; it’s the only church my children knew, my daughter and son-in-law were married by Russ Kennedy, and after twenty years of membership, all of the “friends” that I had were there.
That’s when the problems started. Questions I was asking in Sunday School couldn’t be answered. The first problem was that the Chapel elders were asking long time core members to teach their doctrine when the members had no idea what they were teaching. They were given the material and told to merely read through it. One or two elders would then be assigned to that class to monitor the outcome. This was obviously done to give the doctrine credibility with the Chapel members. At least one parishioner resented being used in that way and told me so (Terri Engle). The problems started for me in a class where Greg Simmons was “co-teaching” a class with elder Mark Schindler. It became obvious that Simmons had no idea what he was teaching, and frankly, I didn’t either.
Another individual in the class was also asking difficult questions. He was telephoned by elder Chad Bresson and put under a gag order. I was called into a meeting with two elders (Devon Berry and Mark Schindler) and told that members were concerned about the questions I was asking. I pointed out that Matthew 18 was being ignored and that if those individuals had a problem with me, they needed to come to me “alone.” The response was: “They don’t have a problem with you, they are just ‘concerned.’” To this day, I contend that there was no “they” because several members were thanking me for the questions I was asking because, “I don’t know enough about theology to even know how to ask the questions I want to ask.”
The elders were beginning to lose credibility, so core members were removed and replaced with elders; and that didn’t go any better—now several other people were asking difficult questions. Then all of the Sunday Schools were combined into the auditorium to be taught by the big gun—Russ Kennedy. That didn’t go well either. The whole situation was becoming a comedy of confusion. Then one night, while relaxing in my living room, there was a knock on the door. When I answered, I was surprised to see three elders standing at my door, Mark Schindler, Greg Cook, and Devon Berry. They had inappropriately prearranged the meeting with my wife for obvious shock and awe effect (element of surprise by coming unannounced—plus three of them which is very unusual). Surprisingly, the meeting was not about doctrinal issues, but a “concern” for the difficulties I was having with my company. However, Mark Schindler had the audacity to suggest that I not be concerned about doctrinal issues “for at least two years.” I remember thinking, “That should give you enough time to assimilate the doctrine (whatever it is) into the minds of our people.” What was going on was completely obvious. This brings me to another Cultwatch element, Intimidation. This meeting was designed to intimidate, and several members who thanked me for asking questions would do so stealthily—wanting to encourage me to do so while being too fearful of the Chapel elders to do so themselves. The climate of fear at the Chapel was evident.
There were several of these kinds of meetings in the months following. During that time, the Chapel elders offered to pay for my CE in fire inspection—I declined for obvious reasons. By December 2007, I still had very little idea what these guys were teaching. My best guess was that they were enamored by New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, Heart Theology, and Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, and were trying to devise their own system that unified these theologies into a consistent system. However, unknown to me at the time, that was already a done deal—they were propagating a prepackaged system that had already accomplished that. Whether you want to call it the centrality of the objective gospel, Sonship Theology, or New Covenant Theology, that was their package. I submitted my letter to the elders in December of 2007 and departed with my family. We began to attend Grace Covenant Church in Beavercreek, Ohio. The church is pastored by a former associate pastor of the Chapel, Rick Wilson.
After my departure, and apparently due to being called on it previously, Mark Schindler and Devon Berry called and asked for a prearranged meeting with me. However, Schindler lied about the purpose of the meeting. When they arrived, and much to my surprise, they announced that they were putting me under the “first step of church discipline.” Already upset about leaving my church family of twenty years, this turn of events stunned and confused me. I collected my thoughts enough to ask for specifics. Four reasons were given: 1. Sewing discord among the brethren. 2. Worldly sorrow 3. Slothfulness 4. Walking in darkness. I thought number three to be interesting because I knew I had a reputation at the Chapel for being too focused on work. When I asked for clarification on number three, Schindler corrected Berry and said that wasn’t one of the reasons, so these two elders were not even on the same page regarding the purpose of the discipline. I asked for time to consider whether or not I would submit to the discipline, and such was granted, but I also knew what would happen if I refused to submit regardless of the fact that I had already submitted a letter of departure.
The next day I contacted Rick Wilson. He didn’t know what to make of the situation. However, a former elder from the Chapel suggested that the situation was driven by Russ Kennedy reliving visions of Illinois. Rick Wilson’s counsel was probably apt for the moment; the best I can remember: “Look Paul, you have been there twenty years. Go back and take their concerns seriously, and then take your family and leave in peace.” That’s what I did, but if I didn’t do anything else correctly, I was smart about one thing: I insisted that they put the reasons for the church discipline in writing. This took about two weeks of my insistence because it was evident that they did not want to do this. When I finally got the letter, two reasons were stated. 1. Love your wife according to Ephesians chapter five. 2. Find a different job. They refused to put any of the initial four reasons in writing. When I finally got the letter, I met with Rick Wilson at a Cracker Barrel restaurant, his treat, and he was completely perplexed by the letter and didn’t know how to respond.
I returned to address the issues, but in every meeting with the elders, NEW ISSUES were introduced. The whole situation became very confusing. Two months later, I announced to the elders that I was leaving the discipline. I was sternly warned that I would be excommunicated and declared an unbeliever before the congregation. I later found out that controlling a person in any way via threat of personal loss, including reputation, was a felony listed as Coercion under Ohio kidnapping laws. Another month later, it became evident that I was going to have to embrace their doctrine before I was released from the church discipline. That’s why New Calvinists call it “redemptive church discipline.” The goal is not to correct behavior, but to bring the individual into a “redemptive understanding of sanctification.” Hence, all of my meetings with the elders were break sessions attempting to use what I call “law negative” in The Truth About New Calvinism to show me that it is impossible for a Christian to keep the law in our “own efforts.” In fact, to attempt to do so in sanctification is an attempt to duplicate the fruits of justification; so for all practical purposes, justification by works. That’s why the elders continued to bring up more and more issues in our meetings while I was under their church discipline. As I saw my failures and a second step of church discipline looming on the horizon, I was supposed to break down and cry out, “I cannot keep it—someone must keep the law for me!” I cite New Calvinist Bill Baldwin in the book to illustrate this twisted reality concerning New Calvinism. This also explains why Mark Schindler was baptized again shortly after John Street left. Apparently, he repented, leaving Rome and joining semper reformanda.
Meanwhile, my missionary son-in-law and daughter came back on furlough from Puerto Rico and become intimately involved in the situation. Upon his counsel and the counsel of other pastors, I walked away from the discipline and took my family to Rick Wilson’s church. Shortly thereafter, Berry and Schindler came to my house on a Saturday evening and warned me not to leave. I in turn warned them that God would judge all things in the end. The next morning I was excommunicated before the congregation and declared an unbeliever. No reasons were given; the congregation was left to their own imaginations. Many who I had ministered to in the past simply assumed that I had committed adultery against Shirley and was unrepentant. In fact, a member of the Chapel recently told an acquaintance of mine that they were told such accordingly. In a meeting with myself, Mark Schindler, and Rick Wilson, Schindler pathetically denied that deliberate form of slander by saying that the elders mentioned in their statement to the congregation that I disagreed with the discipline. No kidding? I bet they were surprised to hear that! Adulterers rarely agree with church discipline. No?
Upon arrival at Grace Covenant with my family, Shirley and I entered marriage counseling with pastor Wilson. In our first counseling session, Wilson asked Shirley what it would look like for me to repent of the reasons I was brought up on church discipline. She didn’t know. In fact, she said she wasn’t sure why I was brought up on discipline. During this time, and unknown to me or Wilson, the Clearcreek elders privately submitted a six-page resolution to my wife commanding her to return to the Chapel without me. The statement painstakingly documented all of my sins against Shirley, which excluded verbal accusations they were making to Chapel parishioners at home Bible studies. The document also gave her the green light to divorce me based on three biblical abandonment principles of not supplying need: love; sex; financial needs. A copious note written by Shirley on the document is telling: “Is it still abandonment if 3, or 2 of the 3 are provided?” Also, I submitted full financial disclosure to Wilson which he also forwarded to the Chapel elders. I found the document in Shirley’s Bible. It also included a promise of a job, financing of a divorce attorney, and housing. Had Wilson been copied on the document, it could have been used to address specific issues in our counseling, but the document was given to Shirley in secret. They also stated to Shirley in the document that I had no authority over her because I had been declared an unbeliever by the Clearcreek elders. According them, they were the ones who had the authority in her life, and they were instructing her to return to the Chapel. At that same time, they instructed parishioners to barrage Shirley with cards and letters. Cultwatch calls this technique, Love Bombing.
During that time, I began receiving emails from a Clearcreek parishioner. Here are some excerpts:
So what ended up happening, is all these clues started to add up. The major one was how they responded to your being “given the boot” so to speak… I was there when they first announced it in service, and later on, in flock when Dan brought it up “in order to allay [or prevent...] our questions and concerns”. You probably already know basically what we were told- not to visit your website, not to engage debate with you- to trust our elders who knew so much more than we did from having spent so much time “in” the situation. And shortly after that, was when they implemented the security measures, in a not-so-concealed and vague way, they certainly implied you or someone on your behalf may pose a serious threat. I of course went to search out the website immediately, I’m sorry but even the apostle Paul encouraged the church to search the Scriptures for themselves- to my knowledge he never demands our unconditional trust of himself, or anyone but the Lord.
The website that the parishioner is speaking of is a website constructed by my son-in-law to confront the Clearcreek congregation for breaking up our family. The website, eldersresolution.org contains substantial documentation for purposes of ascertaining the truth in the situation. But the parishioner’s testimony is also indicative of two more points by Cultwatch: Relationship Control and Information Control. Regarding the first, Cultwatch says, “Beware of a group that tells you who you can and cannot see.” Regarding information control, Cultwatch states, “If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult.”
Regarding the motives of the Chapel elders, this email was interesting:
Even after this, I continued to attend Clearcreek. But more questions arose, especially concerning church discipline. More and more it seemed they selected the ppl for discipline, while others were left alone. I am a prime example. I realize they don’t have the resources to follow everyone around, but I was even living with my [boyfriend/girlfriend (info withheld to protect identity of parishioner)] at one point and [name of elder withheld to protect identity of parishioner] just eventually quit talking to me- though my membership remains and I was never brought up on any “charges”. I’d been in counseling for much of the entire time I attended. There are more strange happenings, but I won’t get into all of it.
The above was going on while I was literally being held hostage at the Chapel under a bogus church discipline. The Chapel elders severely overestimated the congregations ability to think for themselves or to take a stand. They should have just let it all go. But they continued to try to cover bad decisions with more bad decisions. And as time goes on, they are telling more lies to try to cover for prior lies.
Though these events are tragic, I can now see where they have equipped me to contend against this false doctrine. My story is by no means isolated or unique. I think Clearcreek Chapel is typical of the kind of ministries that are being spawned by New Calvinism. In fact, I know it is. This has given me the drive necessary to research this doctrine in order to learn more and more about it and warn others. And to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. Because only truth sanctifies (John 17:17).
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 12: The Creepiness Continues to Get Creepier
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermon is becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that "it" in his statement refers to God's word, not Paul's preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
2 comments