Paul's Passing Thoughts

This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did.

A New Calvinist blogger by the name of  Aaron O’Kelly has responded to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin. Among many other accomplishments, Aaron obtained a doctorate degree from Southern seminary which is of particular interest to me as a Southern Baptist.

I will address the title of Aaron’s post first. It exemplifies the New Calvinist motif: us against them; evangelical Catholicism against the children of Luther; the scandalous doctrine of freedom; and partaking with Paul the apostle in being called an antinomian, etc. Though I could cite a gazillion examples, one from New Calvinist guru Tullian Tchividjian should suffice:

“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters.”

That’s the mentality—they are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians. Let that sink in. Towards the end of his post, Aaron eludes to their kinship with the great apostle in being called antinomian because they have discovered the long lost gospel:

“Dohse’s open letter is one more indication of how scandalous the gospel really is.  When we receive the unfathomable good news that God receives us into his favor on account of Christ alone, and not because of anything in us, we instinctively recoil in an attempt to protect this glorious message from the charge of antinomianism.  The pure gospel is too strong for us, and we think we need to mix it with a good bit of law to keep it from becoming too dangerous.”

And:

“But the gospel of the New Testament is the good news of freedom from the law through union with the crucified and risen Christ (Romans 7:1-7).  It is a message that Paul was slandered for proclaiming, as though he encouraged sin (Romans 3:8).  And those who have proclaimed it faithfully have been slandered ever since.”

O’Kelly also mentions that he considers himself a “Luthero-Calvinistic Baptist, but that hasn’t caught on yet.” Give it time Aaron, I’m sure it will eventually. After all, like Luther, New Calvinists are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians.

I might also mention that the we are like the apostle Paul because he was accused of antinomianism also was tried on Jason Hood when New Calvinist Dane Ortlund responded to his calling out of Tchividjian. I comment on the exchange in another post:

“Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlund’s original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being ‘falsely’ accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!”

Hood’s theological trouncing of Ortland’s position can be observed here: http://goo.gl/wYTrV .

Much of Aaron O’Kelly’s (hereafter: “A-OK”) post addresses the genealogy chart. Perfect. After likening me to a government worker, he says the following:

“All kidding aside, charts like these have the effect of distorting the character of broad movements by implying that the adherents of the movement are members of a tightly knit group (cult?) who have conspired together to defend the novel teachings of their founder(s), to whom they are staunchly loyal.”

“Genealogy charts” and “family trees” (terms I use often to refer to the chart) in no way infer what A-OK is saying. Theological frameworks often leave behind a long history of people who never knew each other. Besides, the theological journal of the Australian Forum (hereafter: “AF”), Present Truth (hereafter “PT”), had a huge readership in Reformed Baptist circles and places like Westminster Seminary. In fact, Jon Zens was introduced to Brinsmead and the Forum through PT while he was a student at Westminster. To make my point, A-OK states the following concerning the top of the chart:

“I myself have never heard of the majority of names at the top of the list.  I have heard of Graeme Goldsworthy, and I think he is an excellent Bible teacher.  He is one influence among many (including some other names on the chart, but also including a large number of names that are not) who has played a role in my understanding of the Bible.  Does that make me a card-carrying member of the group represented by this chart?  If so, I must have missed the meeting where we learned the password and the secret handshake.”

So, A-OK seems to say that he has never heard of Zens or Brinsmead (he implies that Goldsworthy is the only one he knows of at the top of the chart), but it is well documented that Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology with considerable contributions by Brinsmead. Certainly, A-OK has heard of New Covenant Theology. He may even ascribe to it, but that doesn’t mean he’s a loyal follower of Jon Zens; or for that matter, even knew him or heard of him which seems to be the case.

Another indication that one does not need to know of the conceivers of a doctrine (or that my chart would imply a conspiracy) to embrace its elements passed on by various means, is the fact that A-OK parrots the AF’s position on the supposed subjective aspect of the gospel—even using their terminology. Here is what he writes:

“I am not sure why Dohse would consider it controversial to say ‘the gospel is something completely outside of us.’  To say otherwise would be to imply that salvation comes, at least in part, by gazing at our navels.”

Now consider what one of the AF3 wrote (Geoffrey Paxton, who I doubt he has heard of either) on the same wise:

“Such evangelical naval watching does nothing to commend Christianity….” (The False Gospel of the New Birth PT vol.37 article 4). The AF3 continually referred to “naval watching” when discussing the supposed subjective aspects of the gospel verses the objective gospel.

Another example would be Michael Horton who said this: “But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own ‘Spirit-filled’ life?” Compared to G. Paxton who said this: “It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.”

Furthermore, A-OK prefaces the following statement in regard to the chart:

“By the way, I am speaking the language of Luther here; I am in no way indebted to the ‘Sonship theology’ that Dohse criticizes, nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.”

This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did. Moreover, the present-day New Calvinist movement is replete with Miller’s spiritual children; namely, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Jerry Bridges, Darren Patrick, Mark Driscoll, and many others.

But now the most important points about the chart: First, it raises questions of integrity. Why does Keller and Powlison avoid the Sonship nomenclature among New Calvinist? You say, “They don’t” Then why do New Calvinist constantly espouse the phrase Miller invented, but yet they have never even heard of Sonship theology? O’Kelley said himself as one who is apparently qualified to write a response to the chart: “….nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.” I think this also adds to my aforementioned point as well—my chart hardly implies an accusation concerning a conspiracy.

Secondly, New Calvinists can no longer pretend that notable evangelicals have never had a problem with this doctrine. And to a more significant point, notable Calvinist themselves! And I don’t mean secondary disagreements, I mean, “This movement must be exposed and stopped.”

Thirdly, New Calvinist hacks can no longer go to conferences and pretend that all of the keynote speakers are parachuted in from Luther’s compound. Those days are over, and rightfully so.

Well, we have much more work to do on O’Kelly’s post. Lord willing, I will write part two tomorrow.

paul