Paul's Passing Thoughts

“Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged.”

“In speaking of this condition: ‘helpless’; ‘ungodly sinners’; ‘unable to seek God’; ‘dead’; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English Composition. Of course, that is very unlikely.”  

I am often asked what I think the motives of  New Calvinists are. Is their deception deliberate? Do they really believe this stuff themselves, or are they deceived? Do they just want to sell books? Once again, I was asked this question yesterday by our assistant youth director. I told him that for the most part I don’t know, but apart from the fact that I am indifferent to why people do things (my primary concern is truth verses error), I can understand the curiosity. After all, motive is a standard of proof in a court of law—so I guess it’s important. So, I did offer him some motives that I am sure play a part in the deception, but as I was reading further in Mr. Holland’s opus, the grand motive of New Calvinism hit me between the eyes. Hence, I will add this motive to David and my  conversation via this post. First what I shared, then the grand motive.

Infatuation With Novelty  

There are many who are simply dissatisfied with the beaten path of our forefathers. They always have to have something new going on. I have seen this clearly in New Calvinist elders that I have known personally.

The Need To Be “Unique”

I will never forget the introduction I heard from an elder  who was introducing a Sunday School series on John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism.” His introduction began this way: “This is what makes us unique.” I remember thinking immediately: “Why is it their goal to be unique?” Some leaders are always looking for a niche doctrine that sets them apart from other ministries—this is not only a sign of spiritual immaturity, but very dangerous.

The Need To Be Accepted In Powerful Circles Of Influence

Simply stated: a lust to be among the who’s who of admired theologians. The brave spirit of Athanasius and his rousing epitaph, “Athanasius contra mundum” (Athanasius against the world) is far away from the spirit of this age. It reminds me of some Amway conferences I used to go to with a friend some years ago. To be one of the who’s who of the Amway elite was definitely one of the motivations for excelling in the organization. Likewise, pastors clamor to be invited to speak at T4G, The Gospel Coalition conferences, etc. while others are punished by no longer receiving invitations for not towing the New Calvinist line. Shockingly, Holland openly admits in the Acknowledgments of his opus that the work is the product of “a year” of conversations with “people” who “sharpened and clarified” his thinking in regard to the “exclusivity of Christ’s supremacy in all things” (an Australian Forum buzz-phrase). He further states that the book is the “product of those friendships.” Indeed, I’m sure it is.

The Grand Motive: Spiritual Elitism

This is the mentality that leaders possess a unique ability to understand the deep things of God that the sheep don’t possess. I have experienced this mentality firsthand from notable New Calvinists; today’s Evangelical sheep are “not ready” for the “deep, hard truth” that the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and to move on to “anything else” will cause the “loss of both.” They see themselves as being on the cutting edge of the completion of the Reformation that Martin Luther began. The movement is smitten with a visions of grandeur epidemic.

Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged. They, I’m sure, condone this by possessing an arrogant mentality that supposedly knows that “hard truth” must be spoon-fed to the sheep until they are “ready” to accept it. The supposed hard truth is the idea that there is no difference between justification and sanctification. And since everything must be interpreted through the gospel, rules of English composition are out the window. Literally, no pun intended. They use Scripture that pertains to the unregenerate to speak of the Christian’s present condition. This shouldn’t surprise us if they think Christians need the gospel everyday, right? Like John Piper, Holland pathetically uses the same technique in his opus on pages 18-20. Before I note what he does there, let me share an excerpt from a note I wrote to a devout follower of John Piper:

“On point 3, I cite his [Piper’s] entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is ‘us’? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need ‘strengthening’—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: ‘Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here’:

‘I [Piper] know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’

BUT then he continues, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE without any transitional phrase:

‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.’

He is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need salvation. Remember, the title of the message is God Strengthens us by the Gospel, and being ‘strengthened in you own strength’ can only be connected with the previous subject if there is no grammatical transition.”

Holland does the exact same thing in the aforementioned pages. On page 18, he uses Romans 5 to say that God “obhor[s], us” [who is “us”?] and, “How can we [who are “we”?] be reconciled to him?” Again, if “we” need the gospel everyday, “we” need to be in the same condition/position as unbelievers, right? He is a Christian author writing to a Christian audience—one can only assume the personal pronouns that include him (we, us, etc.) are speaking of himself and Christians—not himself and unbelievers in a mankind sense. Certainly, sloppy composition cannot be assumed here as Holland is Director DMin studies at Master’s Seminary. Furthermore, in the sentence immediately afterword, he states the following:

“The answer [the answer to what? This MUST refer to the previous sentences that say “we,” and “us” are loathed by God and need to be reconciled to him] to that question [specifically, “How can we be reconciled to Him?”] is the greatness of the gospel , and the gospel is the only way to remove any and every obstacle obscuring the blazing glory of Jesus Christ. It’s our [who does “our” refer to?] hope for living in His fullness [is that not a Christian / sanctification issue? But yet, this line of thought is clearly connected to a description of the unregenerate and connected with “The answer to that question….”].

Page 19 is further devoted to describing the spiritual  condition of the unregenerate using personal pronouns that identifies himself as the writer and his presumed Christian audience—with the exception of one sentence that speaks of this condition in the PAST tense. In speaking of this condition: “helpless”; “ungodly sinners”; “unable to seek God”; “dead”; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English composition. On page 20, he continues to describe our spiritual condition in both the present and past tense, but only using descriptions of the unregenerate for both. Again, grammatically, one must assume that he is making no distinction. Moreover, in quoting Romans 5:6 to make his point, Holland actually replaces the word “ungodly” with “us” in brackets. The only way any of this can make sense is through an assumption that there is no distinction between the saved and unregenerate.

Trying to sort this deception out is difficult and annoying, and I do think the technique is used deliberately. If you think about it, if someone doesn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification to begin with—this idea would be assimilated into to their thinking by assumption. And, what of an unbeliever reading this? Would that be the gospel? The gospel is the good news that we are just as spiritually dead now as we have always been? I don’t think so.

paul