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, same answer as Nick regarding naming the 5 solas.
The principle of Sola Scriptura is not specific either to sanctification or salvation, but deals with our only infallible rule of faith and life. The principle of Sola Fide is specifically directed to Justification. Sola Gratia is chiefly used in reference to Justification, but is rightly applied to all of salvation (while I’ve seen some Reformed folk like Hendryx say otherwise, see Calvin’s Institutes, Volume 1, Book 2, Chapter 3, Section 12, for example). Solus Christus is related primarily to Justification – we are justified by the merits of Christ alone. Soli Deo Gloria should, of course, be our chief end in life in general.
LikeLike
Nick, TF,
Then there is really no difference between justification and sanctification. The same gospel that justified you also sanctifies you. Right?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
And TurretinFan is far more knowledgable an authority on Reformed Theology than I am. I’m new-ish having been raised Catholic and then being a Southern Baptist (Arminian) for about 11 years before I embraced Reformed Theology.
LikeLike
Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. In contrast, sanctification is the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.
Calling that “the same gospel that justified you also sanctifies you” would require a lot of qualification.
LikeLike
So, is sanctification by Christ alone?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
I fully agree with Turretinfan’s statement. I was taught the same before I went to a Reformed church.
LikeLike
BTW,
Turretinfan defines “acting unchristlike” as, conveniently, disagreeing with James White.
Coincidentally, all people that disagree with James White are angry, unregenerate, God haters, etc. What an odd coincidence.
LikeLike
Turretinfan,
A personal thing against your friend, James White? I specifically called YOU out here for calling someone unregenerate for not agreeing with you and your friends. I also called YOU out for attacking people anonymously and acting like that was Biblical.
Nick, I agree with Jenny, I am convinced that you, like TF and Micah, will not be convinced by ANYTHING. I think most of this was more for the benefit of Paul and his readers, and others who are open to honest discussion. You guys run around saying people are not saved and God haters whenever they disagree with you, and think you are above any biblical standard that the rest of the world is held to. Why would anyone be interested in engaging in meaningful discussion with you guys, or even expect that that was possible? You guys have no credibility, sorry.
LikeLike
Good grief, Nick, calling people “morons” and “bigots” for disagreeing with you is no sign of unchristlikeness? Personally going after people for not supporting you is no sign of unchristlikeness?
Please, you insult our intelligence by pretending to be interested in examples. There is absolutely nothing that will change your mind about your hero.
LikeLike
All,
It’s obvious that anyone who does not support James White is a “God Hater” and “unregenerate” to these people. This is very, very cult-like and it’s scary. Paul, sorry you had to suffer through this. There is no way to convince these people that anything they do or he does is wrong. I give up.
LikeLike
Remi,
I haven’t had time to swing by Whites blog, but it is clear to me that some who have commented here in his defense are of the NC persuasion.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul:
You asked: “So, is sanctification by Christ alone?”
Sanctification is, as I said, the work of God’s free grace. When you say “by Christ alone,” I’m not sure what you intend. Sanctification isn’t based on merit, so it’s not as though we are sanctified by the merit of Christ as distinct from our own merit. On the other hand it is properly the work of the person of the Spirit. So if by “Christ alone,” you mean to deny that the Spirit is involved, we would have to disagree.
I should point out that the effect of sanctification is that we die more and more to sin and live more and more to righteousness. So, it is not as though sanctification is simply some distant forensic act.
You can find a longer and more detailed explanation here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=SckHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA88#v=onepage&q&f=false
I hope that helps.
-TurretinFan
LikeLike
TF,
You say “merit.” Please qualify. Merit for what?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul:
Christ merits justification for us through his active and passive obedience.
I hope that helps.
– TurretinFan
LikeLike
TF,
So the merit you just got done speaking about in the context of sanctification is actually regarding justification. This seems to mean that all of our efforts in sanctification become a merit for justification issue. Do you see what I am saying?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike