But Peter, They’re Not Really Calvinist! An Open Letter To Peter Lumpkins
Dear Peter,
I write to you as a fellow Southern Baptist.
I think real Calvinism has brought good things to Southern Baptists, but I just wanted to write you and mention that your present contention is not with real Calvinism.
They call themselves Calvinists, but that’s a lie. In fact, real Calvinists contend against them. Let me explain. The present movement you see in the SBC has a Calvinism label, but was really hatched by Jon Zens and a Seventh-day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead created a project called the Australian Forum to promote the doctrine, and the two other primary contributors were Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Their family tree, a work of mine with the help of others, can be seen in the following chart:
The basic frame of the doctrine they created is known as the centrality of the objective gospel (COG), and is what drives the present movement you see in the SBC. Apparently, the movement is now known as “New Calvinism,” and entails the T4G, The Gospel Coalition, and many, many other organizations that promote the movement.
Basically, it teaches that the gospel is something completely outside of us (objective), and that we are transformed by contemplating the depths of the gospel (or as John Piper states it: “Beholding as a way of becoming”). This outside, objective focus supposedly aids us in not being distracted by things that are subjective; for instance, even the belief that we are born again. In fact, the movement denies the significance of the new birth and teaches that Christians are still totally depraved. This can be illustrated by the video circulating on the Web called “John Piper is Bad” which doesn’t mean Piper is a cool guy, but rather that he is still a “T” in TULIP—totally depraved. Unlike real Calvinism, it projects TULIP onto sanctification as well. Piper acknowledged in an interview that he understood the video to mean exactly that and also agreed with it. Certainly, traditional Calvinism does not believe that Christians are still totally depraved.
In other words, the movement only recognizes justification (objective) and not the vital union or the new birth (subjective). We are supposedly transformed by focusing on the historical Christ event alone. This is why CJ Mahaney, one of the “core four” with Al Mohler in the T4G, always presents the gospel in the five-word epigram “Christ died for our sins.” In like manner, Piper presents a justification only gospel in “The gospel in 6 Minutes: “In a sentence….That’s the gospel.”
In 2008, one of the Australian 3, Graeme Goldsworthy, spoke at Southern Seminary (in the Australian Forum’s theological journal “Present Truth,” both Paxton and Goldsworthy declared the new birth a “false gospel”). John Piper reviewed Goldsworthy’s visit/lecture in an article posted on his Desiring God website (Piper is one of the keynote speakers at the 2012 T4G). In that article, Piper affirmed COG, and wrote the following:
“When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel [emphasis his, not mine].”
This is an interesting statement considering that Southern Baptists certainly change emphasis to our role as new creatures after we are saved. Piper is saying to do so is to put one’s soul in peril, and this is also exactly what the AF3 propagated. Furthermore, Piper seems to be saying that any emphasis on the work of Christ inside of us is a false gospel—also what the AF3 advocated. Peter, trust me, this problem is way bigger than Calvinism.
In addition, real Calvinist have fought this problem tooth and nail. As you can see from their family tree, the doctrine was repackaged by Dr. John Miller in the form of Sonship Theology while he was at Westminster Seminary. Pastors in the PCA (Calvin’s denomination) have been fighting the doctrine for years, especially Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book against it in 1999. Tim Keller, a major figure in the New Calvinist movement, as well as David Powlison, were followers of John Miller. During a lecture at John Piper’s church, Powlison called Miller his mentor and chastised Adams for being critical of Dr. Miller for coining the phrase, “We must preach the gospel [justification] to ourselves everyday.” However, the fact that the criticism was in book form seemed to have slipped Powlison’s mind. Moreover, readers of my blog, one of which is taking the Sonship course presently, assure me that Sonship clearly teaches the total depravity of the saints, rejects the new birth, and holds to a New Covenant Theology view of the law. It is also common knowledge that Keller has taught Sonship Theology extensively.
It’s all the same doctrine. If the doctrine hadn’t found new life at Westminster, it wouldn’t have survived the brutal pushback by Reformed Baptist (more real Calvinist) such as Walter Chantry. Chantry and others adamantly called it out for what it is: “neo-antinomianism.” In the same way that COG plagued the Reformed Baptist by splitting churches and families, this doctrine continues to wreak havoc on God’s people.
Peter, worry about the real Calvinist later—these guys must go!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul, I wrote a response to this letter that you can find here:
http://cruxchristi.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/the-scandalous-gospel-a-response-to-paul-dohse/
LikeLike
My response, part 1 http://wp.me/pmd7S-RT
LikeLike
I think what concerns me most is one of the unofficial leaders of the popular Calvinist movement is Mr. James White, who treats people who disagree with him in a violent and vicious manner that is antithetical to Biblical Christianity. In addition to his own unchristlike attacks, he has an anonymous blogger, Turretinfan, run around slandering people and calling them “unregenerate” for not supporting James White.
Unfortunately, people defend him for doing this because, in the end, he claims to be a Calvinist. This is bizarre because he violates large portions of scripture, yet he has supporters who defend it because he focuses on other portions of scripture(specifically, the verses Calvinists regularly refer to).
There are many true Calvinists that love the Lord and are very well versed in scripture, however, as long as James White is seen as the standard bearer, Calvinism will have an asterisk by its name.
LikeLike
Your comments here reflect a contention that I have with what the 5th point of Calvinism itself actually says. This is nothing more than that position amplified, with the exception of the twise that Christians remain “Totally Depraved.” While I understand WHAT Perseverance implies, this movement that you are speaking of is at least the “tails” side of the 5th point as it exists. I think most have moved their thinking of Perseverance of Saints to a “Eternal Security of the Believer” position but in my mind there is a wide gap between the two concepts and this discussion presents the other side of that wide gap as I see it.
I have said in looking at the 5th point as it is written, it appears to me that it taken in its complete context, the 5th point is in actuality more important than conversion or regeneration because it is the persevering that ultimately secures glorification and not conversion. I understand that persevering is not possible without regerneration, but the point still is that glorification is not possible apart from the persevering, which involves choices that men make and given that premise, salvation itself is reduced to a system of works, or holding on till the end; unless one contends that God dictates the regenerate’s decisions protecting him from falling away.
Thanks for your post.
Grateful to be in His Grip!
><>’
LikeLike
“I think what concerns me most is one of the unofficial leaders of the popular Calvinist movement is Mr. James White, who treats people who disagree with him in a violent and vicious manner that is antithetical to Biblical Christianity. ”
You mean… like you did in your reply?
LikeLike
Micah,
If you are referring to me (I didn’t write the comment you are referring to, but anyway, just in case….), I recall referring to New Calvinists (in my reply to Dr. O’Kelly) as “New Calvinist hacks.” A “hack,” according to Websters, is a hireling or somebody who does what they do for money. Relatively speaking, a mild term for false teachers. Actually, for me, pretty mild as the fallout from this doctrine comes into remembrance often. For one example among many, husbands begging their wives (with tears) not to divorce them just because their marriage doesn’t “look like the gospel.” You can also throw in innumerable church splits. So I offended you because I called your hero’s “hacks”? well, get over it. paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
“We must preach the gospel [justification] to ourselves everyday.” However, the fact that the criticism was in book form seemed to have slipped Powlison’s mind. Moreover, readers of my blog, one of which is taking the Sonship course presently, assure me that Sonship clearly teaches the total depravity of the saints, rejects the new birth, and holds to a New Covenant Theology view of the law. It is also common knowledge that Keller has taught Sonship Theology extensively.”
A lot of what you write is lining up with what I have come to conclude with what I call the “Calvinistas” in the neo Reformed movement that is sweeping our land. I have not the same terminology as you do and have not heard of ‘Sonship” I have concluded that there is no focus at all on the new birth.They are stuck on Justification and do not seem to want people to progress to sanctification. What is missing is the indwelt Holy Spirit. They never seem to get there. As one friend put it, they focus on “Christ for us” but leave off “Christ IN us”.
The question is why? I have my theories based upon lots of observation. For one, the cult of personality is a huge factor. Two, it sells books. Three, people who have the indwelling Holy Spirit, do not continually fall for 1 and 2.
LikeLike
Lydia,
“Christ for us” refers to the supposed fact that Christ lived a perfect life so that obedience in sanctification could also be imputed to us as part of the atonement. It’s called “double imputation.”
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Just to let everyone know, Micah Burke is well-known for regularly calling believers “God Haters” who commit the sin of disagreeing with James White.
LikeLike
Remi, you made a lot of accusations against James White without providing a single shred of evidence. Since this is probably not the appropriate forum for that, surely you can provide all of us who are committed to knowledge of the truth of some evidence for each of your claims against a brother in Christ who has been a faithful preacher, accountable to other Elders in his local Church and whose very public ministry includes standing up for the Gospel to many atheists and non-Christian religions.
LikeLike
I meant to say “surely you can provide us with a link to…some evidence”
LikeLike
Remi is a pseudonymn for someone who hangs out at Peter Lumpkin’s blog… one needn’t spend much time ~there~ to realize that what I said of Lumpkins and his ilk is true.
“A “hack,” according to Websters, is a hireling or somebody who does what they do for money.”
Do you have any proof that I, or TurretinFan get money from the tiny, tiny ministry of Alpha and Omega? Otherwise you’ve proven yourself to be a liar, just like Lumpkins.
LikeLike
Fellas, I am not Remi. And my reference was in a post regarding my indifference to New Calvinist quibbling amongst themselves about their own false doctrine. No, I don’t mean to call ALL NC hirelings. With that, I will clear the way for Remi to respond. As far as Lumpkin being a person who lies as a lifestyle (“liar” as opposed to “he lied about this or that”), I for sure DON’T believe you.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike