Paul's Passing Thoughts

Kevin DeYoung Bagged by the New Calvinist Slither Police, Part1

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on June 14, 2011

Man! What a day for emails! Two weeks ago, Robert Brinsmead agreed to an interview via back and forth email. So, my morning started out with his return of my first ten questions. His answers were more help than I could have ever hoped for, and actually have some relevance here. This interrupted my intentions of returning two excellent emails I received from a couple of readers late last night that are very interesting as well. I couldn’t wait to get back from running errands in order to reply to the emails, but when I logged on, I noticed that I received another email with three links.

I began to read the first one, and thought, “Is this the beginning of the Great Slither?” What’s that? Well, New Calvinism (NC) is so nuanced that when (or if) God’s people catch on, I predict that many of the who’s who of NC will slowly slither back into orthodoxy and play dumb. Some keep themselves in a position where they can say, “Hey man, I only hung-out with those guys at conferences because they’re  really cool—uh, I mean, nice guys. I never believed any of that stuff.” For example, Al Mohler already denies that he  knows anybody who believes “we are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us” even though he is one of the “core four” of T4G. Nevertheless, I would welcome the Great Slither—am sure God would sort out all of the damage that has been done at a later date.

The first link was an article by Kevin DeYoung entitled, “Make Every Effort”  ( http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/06/07/make-every-effort/ ) The article is eight paragraphs and the first four are hardcore orthodoxy. Many biblically accurate statements are made, but these capture the gist: “Count the letters carefully: effort is not a four letter word”; “It is the consistent witness of the New Testament that growth in godliness requires exertion on the part of the Christian.”

Of course, like all good New Calvinist, DeYoung then uses the last four paragraphs to “qualify” those statements. For example: “Obviously, even when we work, it is never meritorious. Our effort can never win God’s justifying favor. In fact, whatever we manage to work out is really what God purposed to work in us (Phil. 2:12-13; cf. Heb. 2:11). The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.”

Note that our (that would be us Christians) work is never meritorious, and cannot win God’s justifying favor. This statement subtly synthesizes justification and sanctification. As Christians, the legal declaration and imputed righteousness of Christ in justification is a onetime, done deal. It is also an act of God alone, and by faith alone. But our work in sanctification is to please God with the help of the Holy Spirit—not an attempt to be justified by our own merits, that’s impossible. But in the process, rewards and blessings are promised. DeYoung doesn’t qualify any of this in his statement, and for a reason. Note that he says, “The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.” The “gospel” as he uses it here concerns justification; so, if we can’t work in justification, and the gospel is the “A-Z” of the Christian life, how can we rightfully work in the sanctification process without doing violence to justification? This statement contradicts everything he says in the first four paragraphs. What DeYoung really means by the “effort” he talks about in the first four paragraphs is reflected in the title of a follow-up article: “Gospel-Driven Effort.” That’s effort driven by the gospel; in other words, “Christians live by the same gospel that saved us,” and works (they rarely say “our works”) flow from that. I address this fundamental error of sanctification by justification here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Jh .

All in all, DeYoung’s article was a typical nuanced, double-speaking masterpiece. I was literally close to the monitor, sipping my McDonalds coffee, and muttering, “Awesome— #%@* this guy’s good, maybe the best I’ve seen yet.” Yes, this is the kind of article people send me with accusations that I “slander” New Calvinist: “See, he believes in exertion in the sanctification process—pull it down right now! Pull it down!” But, whose exertion? And exertion in what? Believing and deep repentance only? An exertion that has no moral value without joy?

No, no, this article was not slithering. But the New Calvinist Slither Police wanted to make sure. Officer Tullian Tchividjian (TT) is on the case, calling out DeYoung for sounding too orthodox. TT filed the following police report here:

( http://www.christianpost.com/news/work-hard-but-in-which-direction-51115/ ).

DeYoung himself acknowledged in his follow-up article that TT wrote the article to “pushback” against what he wrote. TT’s article was an unabashed reaffirmation to the Koolaid drinking faithful that all is well.

TT’s article was full of the more blatant forms of what DeYoung said NC isn’t in his first article: “let go and let God” theology. Despite TT’s deceptive affirmations throughout the article, at one point he says this: “Many conclude that justification is step one and that sanctification is step two and that once we get to step two there’s no reason to go back to step one. Sanctification, in other words, is commonly understood as progress beyond the initial step of justification. But while justification and sanctification are to be clearly separated theologically, the Bible won’t allow us to separate them essentially and functionally.” Got that? They are theologically separate, but not functionally separate. Huh? Nevertheless, again, this contradicts TT’s claim that he believes in effort being exerted by believers in the sanctification process. As a matter of fact, he clarifies what NC are really talking about when they speak of hard work: “Sanctification is the hard work of going back to the certainty of our already secured pardon in Christ and hitting the refresh button over and over,” and, “It is in this context that I’ve said before how sanctification is the hard work of getting used to our justification.” Got that? Let there be no doubt: this is the NC idea of hard work in the sanctification process; be not deceived.

Furthermore, TT puts the icing on the cake by saying the following: “Christ’s subjective work in us is his constantly driving us back to the reality of his objective work for us. Sanctification feeds on justification, not the other way around.” This statement should give you a clue as to who NC think is really doing the work, but not only that, if sanctification “feeds on justification,” one only needs to remember that justification is by faith alone apart from works. In future posts, based on my correspondence with Robert Brinsmead, I will be illustrating how the centrality of the objective gospel (reread TT’s quote above) created by the Australian Forum is the embryo from which NC has developed into what it is today.

Can Kevin DeYoung  be Saved From the Dark Side?

 

DeYoung’s  response to TT’s report was truly pathetic. It is a tortured exercise in not appearing as one corrected, while trying to avoid a possible indictment by the NC district attorney. Not only that, in his introduction, he shares the deep subjects he will be considering while on his forthcoming sabbatical (go figure, another NC taking a sabbatical):

  • Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
  • Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
  • Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both trying to find a root sin?
  • How are justification and sanctification related?
  • Can we obey God?
  • Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we have done as we were commanded?
  • How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
  • Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
  • Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness and content with little progress in godliness)?
  • What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with Christ and sanctification relate to justification?

Any believer worth their salt should know the answers to those questions; and this guy is one of the NC big dogs? He needs a sabbatical to figure out those questions?! And didn’t he just answer most of those questions in his first and second articles? Could this be a cry for help? Could it be a ploy? Is he going to skip bail?

Paul

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. R. Seiver's avatar R. Seiver said, on June 15, 2011 at 11:03 AM

    Paul,

    I am going to have to complement you. You are without a doubt the best I have ever seen at finding a problem that doesn’t really exist in people’s statements. You wrote, “Of course, like all good New Calvinist, DeYoung then uses the last four paragraphs to “qualify” those statements. For example: ‘Obviously, even when we work, it is never meritorious. Our effort can never win God’s justifying favor. In fact, whatever we manage to work out is really what God purposed to work in us (Phil. 2:12-13; cf. Heb. 2:11). The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.’

    Note that our (that would be us Christians) work is never meritorious, and cannot win God’s justifying favor. This statement subtly synthesizes justification and sanctification.”

    I have no interest in defending New Calvinists whatever they really are. I am clearly an OLD Calvinist in more ways than one, but how you can find a synthesis between justification and sanctification in the above statement defies imagination. I bet you think the Apostle Paul himself was a new Calvinist don’t you?

    Randy

    Like

    • pauldohse's avatar pauldohse said, on June 15, 2011 at 12:22 PM

      Randy,

      1. DeYoung’s comment assumes all such issues point back to justification, when in fact, the two are separate. He quotes JC Ryle, but JC said the following: “But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification.” Furthermore, his follow-up article is entitled, “Gospel-Driven Effort” or for all practical purposes: “Effort Driven By Justification in sanctification.” Thirdly, he doesn’t refute anything TT said in the “pushback” article, which is an antinomian treatise par excellence. Also, in the same article, DeYoung dissed Keswick theology while one of the big dogs of NC has a relationship with those who propagate the doctrine and speaks at their conferences;namely, DA Carson, who also has an assistant that wrote a book dissing Keswick theology. NC also disses postmodernism while constantly partying with the emergent church in broad daylight. The whole movement is a lie. 2. You advocate NCT, which is a tenet of New Calvinism. You’re a NC–just thought I would let you know.

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  2. R. Seiver's avatar R. Seiver said, on June 15, 2011 at 1:15 PM

    I would rather you had said I was a young Calvinist, but that would not have been true either. The truth is you are an all or nothing kind of guy. I agree with much of what the Westminster Confession states, Does that make me a Covenant Theologian? Just because a person may agree with certain beliefs held by one movement, does not mean he should be identified with the entire movement. I agree with some of your beliefs and statements, but I don’t want anyone to associate me with you and your whacked out ideas.

    Like

    • pauldohse's avatar pauldohse said, on June 15, 2011 at 1:35 PM

      Randy,

      Jon Zens is the father of NCT. Robert Brinsmead and he worked together to develop a covenant theology based on the “centrality of the objective gospel.” COG then went on to become Sonship theology, then Gospel Sanctification, and now is known as New Calvinism. You need to learn more about your family.

      > —–Original Message—– >

      Like

  3. R. Seiver's avatar R. Seiver said, on June 15, 2011 at 9:39 PM

    Frankly Paul,

    I couldn’t care less. The reality is that the branch to which I belonged, though profiting greatly from some of what Jon Zens wrote early on, developed in only the loosest possible connection with him. I was quite actively involved with the movement 15 to 20 years ago, but have only met and talked to Jon for about five minutes during a mission trip to Mexico years ago. While I was involved with the movement, I felt it was moving in a direction contrary to what some of us had developed, moving more toward “Progressive Dispensationalism” that I was comfortable with. Anyway. I have lost track with folks over the years. Now I am only concerned with the propagation of truth. Part, of the truth is that I never been a Calvinist [old or new] except in the soteriological sense. I am a Baptist.

    One reason I am a Baptist, only in the theological sense, not the denominational sense [I am ashamed of most of the denominational Baptists I have met], is that the whole idea of “covenant children” corresponding to the physical offspring of Abraham, is bogus. The whole idea depends on the unity of all the covenants since they fall under the overarching head of “the Covenant of Grace.” If you pull out the lynchpin of the Sabbath. the unity of the covenants goes out the window. Most of the “Sabbatarians” I have met wanted to “obey” the Sabbath according to their Christian liberty. The problem is, Christian liberty doesn’t work in the observation of moral absolutes. What this means is that the reformed don’t observe the Mosaic Law any more than the advocates of NCT do. Everyone who believes the Bible believes God’s righteous standard still demands our obedience. If a person believes we have no duty to obey Christ, he has departed from NCT and doesn’t deserve to use the name. That is a far cry from “antinomianism” in the sense that we believe there is no law to which we must submit now that we have been forgiven.

    Oh, by the way, the gospel involves far more than justification through faith.

    Like


Leave a comment