A Response to Aaron O’Kelly, Part Two: Dr. O’Kelly is Only Totally Depraved When He Talks About It
Once again, pardon me for concluding from statements like this that Horton sees no difference between the spiritual condition of the saved /unsaved, and their equal need for the gospel of justification only.
As we continue our work concerning Aaron O’Kelly’s response to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin, it is difficult to know where to go next; the response is rich with post material. However, in this second part, we will focus on the following excerpt as we continue to evaluate New Calvinism with Dr. O’Kelly’s help:
“Dohse does make the claim that the NC denies the significance of the new birth. Such a claim is simply false. Some figures on the chart, such as Goldsworthy, have argued that the message of the gospel cannot be equated with the message of the new birth (and to what degree the new birth should be categorized as a component of the gospel or as an implication of the gospel is a point on which you would find disagreement within the NC), but such a denial does not entail that the new birth is insignificant.
Furthermore, the claim that the official teaching of the NC is that believers remain totally depraved after regeneration is likewise suspect. I myself am not aware of any uniformity among the theologians on the chart with regard to this question, nor have I ever heard any of them discuss it at length. I would imagine that different theologians on the chart would speak of it in different ways. It is certainly no pillar of NC orthodoxy, as Dohse implies. In my own practice, I often speak of myself as totally depraved, but what I mean by that is, considered apart from the grace of Christ, I am totally depraved in and of myself. It is a conceptual category that enables me to speak of myself from a certain perspective, not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life. Again, this way of speaking likewise goes at least back to Luther.”
First, A-OK (Dr. Aaron O’Kelly) rightly words my claim: “Dohse does make the claim that the NC denies the significance of the new birth.” Then A-Ok follows with this: “Such a claim is simply false.” Really? I apologize that I got that idea from quotes such as this from New Calvinist Michael Horton:
“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?”
I further apologize that I got that idea because of the following: according to at least one author, much of Horton’s theological thinking and ministry philosophy was formed by the Australian Forum. In a particular article written by the Forum, Goeffrey Paxton states, “It [the new birth] 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.” I found this comparison when one of my readers flippantly commented that he wondered if Horton got one of his favorite jingles, “Christ’s doing and dying” from the Forum. For giggles, I looked into it and was shocked to find the latter quote from the Forum. The quote comes from an article written by the Forum entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” I suppose drawing any conclusions from such a title is presumptuous. Furthermore, Goldsworthy prefaced Paxton’s article with a footnote to make his point clear concerning this statement in Obituary for the Old Testament (G. Goldsworthy, PT vol.41 article2): “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.”
Notice, I repeat, notice how all three quotes frame any emphasis on the new birth as another gospel: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer….but [rather] our….” “….by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against….” “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel [emphasis mine]….”
Moreover, Horton said this in Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Once again, pardon me for concluding from statements like this that Horton sees no difference between the spiritual condition of the saved /unsaved, and their equal need for the gospel of justification only. And even though the consequences of “move[ing] on to something else” is the loss of justification (ie., your lost), he doesn’t qualify what “something else” is. In my first part, if you observe my citation of Tullian Tchividjian, his “something else” is “deeper theological waters.” Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Also, spare me the Horton quotes where he appears to emphasize obedience. Horton believes, like many New Calvinist, that biblical imperatives are meant to “drive us to despair of self righteousness” so that we will gain a deeper understanding of our need for justification—in contrast to new creatures who find joy in obedience (though joy does not walk with obedience at every moment) as they are aided by the “Helper” (ESV John 14:15-17).
Throughout his post A-OK employs the New Calvinist protocol to deflect accountability for any particular belief; “One final observation to make before I close is that Dohse appears to be completely unaware of the fact that a very substantive discussion, including a good bit of back-and-forth disagreement, has been going on right in the center of the NC for some time now over the very question of sanctification and how the gospel and our own personal efforts are related to it. Justin Taylor provided a roundup of that discussion here. A quick perusal of that conversation will reveal quite clearly that there is no official New Calvinist position on the question, as Dohse implies. It is an ongoing conversation with significant areas of disagreement within the movement.”
In case, after case, after case, after case, those who confront elders about what is being taught in their churches, and trying to get to the bottom of it, hear this: “Well, all of the elders do not agree on that point.” This is a classic method implemented by cults to avoid coming clean about what they believe until the sheep are “ready to receive it.” And in fact, I will be discussing in one of the next parts how New Calvinism nurtures a cult-like atmosphere in churches since A-OK brought the “cult” angle into the discussion.
However, A-OK does clarify his own position; I think, anyway. After implementing the aforementioned deflection technique cited in another part of his post, He states:
“In my own practice, I often speak of myself as totally depraved, but what I mean by that is, considered apart from the grace of Christ, I am totally depraved in and of myself. It is a conceptual category that enables me to speak of myself from a certain perspective, not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life. Again, this way of speaking likewise goes at least back to Luther.”
Here, we can see exactly what New Calvinist really believe about the new birth. First, why would it ever be necessary to speak of a Christian as totally depraved in any context? It goes without saying that if Christ does not indwell us we are not spiritually alive. So why frame anything that way unless you’re talking about BC/AC? And if that is what he is talking about in the above statement, he certainly doesn’t say so. I mean really: “Hey guys, did you know that if Christ didn’t indwell us we would be totally depraved?” Well, duh.
The key to understanding what A-OK is saying is the notation of these two phrases: “I am totally depraved in and of myself (present tense is assumed; ‘I am’)” and “….not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life.” This concept was articulated by New Calvinist Paul David Tripp in How People Change. Throughout the book, Tripp refers to the “living Christ” over, and over again as if we didn’t know that Christ is alive. Then on pages 64, and 65 (2006 edition) he plainly states that Christians are spiritually dead, writing, “When you are dead you can’t do anything.” Simply stated, we are still spiritually dead and the living Christ within us obeys for us. This is also strongly implied by how many New Calvinists treat Galatians 2:20. We are not actually new creatures per se, but the only thing within us that is alive is Christ through the Holy Spirit. Before you reject this notion out of hand (though you must admit that it can be seen in Aaron’s careful wording), read Donn Arms’ book review on How People Change here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=4793 Or here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC .
As Christians, if we are, as Dr. O’Kelly writes, “….totally depraved in and of myself,” how can the Holy Spirit be our “Helper.” What’s a helper? There is no helping the dead, the Holy Spirit would have to do all the work. And trust me, that’s what they really believe. Yet, not only did Christ say, “You must be born again,” the apostle Paul said, “Behold, all things are new.” New for whom? The Holy Spirit certainly doesn’t need anything new. The apostle also said to put off the old man (some translations, “former”) and put on the new creation. Does the Holy Spirit need to put anything new on Himself? I think not.
The implications here are profound. And frankly, I do not give a rat’s behind about disagreements between New Calvinist hacks. At the very least, their position is unclear—that’s on them. Moreover, again, where did Luther ever write: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”? And if he did, so what? The Bereans didn’t give the apostle Paul a pass on truth; and trust me, Luther was no apostle Paul.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
This argument above reminds me of the Terry L. Johnson encounter with Sonship in the PCA. Terry, a very upstanding pastor, studied for several years about Sonship teachings and history. In an “umpired debate” Terry presented 6 areas of concern. The Sonshippers responded in denial of 5 of his 6 concerns. Terry said about the Sonshippers: “They say that they do not recognize in Sonship the teaching that I describe. Some have even suggested that I have constructed a “straw man” or have “misrepresented” the program. They agree that the errors I describe would be bad if they were true. But they are not true they say.”
New Calvinists sure have a consistent way of defending themselves. I wonder if anybody is teaching them how to confront attackers?
The Episcopalians had it easy. A notorious homosexual was officially pronounced bishop. Soon, over 700 churches walked out the back door of that denomination. It was clear-cut, there was no unending argument.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Yep, amen. It’s a biblical concept called “separation.”
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
I have seen this page:
http://eldersresolution.org/
I don’t know the story behind it all, but I can tell that you have suffered. I pray the Lord will give you strength to endure, as you are no doubt carrying a lot of baggage from the past (who wouldn’t be after all that?).
When I first saw the page, I guessed that there might be a connection with these past events and your present determination, even obsession, to marginalize what you call New Calvinists. But I didn’t know for sure.
Then I noticed this comment from you on another thread:
“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.'”
As I said, I don’t know the story, but it sounds like you have been through a terrible ordeal, and those who were supposed to care for your soul instead counseled your wife to leave you (do I have that correct?). You apparently blame New Calvinist theology for what has happened to you, so you are lashing out, not only against the particular people involved in your own story, but against all New Calvinists from whom you can detect any whiff of the kind of theology that you blame for the destruction of your marriage. Am I seeing this correctly?
If so, I would like to counsel you to recognize that, however you have been wronged, you cannot attribute the end of your marriage to John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, Michael Horton, etc., and all of those who have been influenced by their ministries. You cannot hold all of us guilty for the wrongful actions of a small group of people. Slandering New Calvinists is not going to put your marriage back together, nor is it going to honor the Lord in any way in the wake of this horrific ordeal that you have endured.
I hope that those who have wronged you will repent so that you can extend forgiveness to them. If not, I hope that you can do the next best thing and put the whole matter into God’s hands, trusting that he will set all wrongs right in the end. But one thing that is deadly to your soul is what you are doing now, and that is slandering and misrepresenting brothers in Christ who had nothing to do with the sin that was committed against you.
I for one can assure you that I would never counsel a woman to divorce her husband because the marriage did not “look like the gospel.” Even if a woman were married to an unbeliever, Scripture is clear that she should stay committed to the marriage. There is nothing inherent to the New Calvinist position that would lead to the conclusion that your wife should have left you. I hope you can realize that and turn away from this dark path down which you are walking.
LikeLike
Hum. I guess he thinks you are dealing dishonestly too.
You quoted the following, “Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Then you wrote,
Once again, pardon me for concluding from statements like this that Horton sees no difference between the spiritual condition of the saved /unsaved, and their equal need for the gospel of justification only.
No Paul, I will not pardon you for that conclusion. The statement simply doesn’t say what you allege. “Or” indicates the two works are different to meet differing needs. “Nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead,” describes one condition–the condition of those outside of Christ. OR “continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel.” refers to another need. Jesus said, “As the living Father sent Me,and I live because of Him, so he who feeds [goes on grazing] on me will live because of Me” (John 6:57). When Jesus talks about our continual need to feed on him, i.e., “eat my flesh and drink my blood,” does He not draw our attention to His redeeming work on the cross. The same can be seen in the parable of the vineyard in John 15. Unless we are drawing grace from Christ as a branch draws sap from a vine, we can do nothing. That does not mean we have not received a new nature and are no different from the unregenerate. It simply means we are as dependent on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel for our sanctification as the unregenerate need the free grace of God in the gospel for their justification.
Paul, do you not continually [when you are thinking properly and acting in character with your Christian profession] feel yourself dependent on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel?
LikeLike
Aaron,
Aaron,
Really, you are supplying me with more post material that I could ever write in a year. My
response to your comments here will be part___ of the several articles I will be writing
in response to your response to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin. Aaron, why don’t you know
the “whole story”? Much of the documentation on the website is their own documentation.
The letter stating their reasons for the bogus church discipline they brought me under
because I discovered what they were spoon-feeding the congregation speaks for its self.
There is still information that we have yet to post such as written correspondence proving
they lied to Grace Partner pastors about the situation. The night the elders came over to
place me under the discipline after I had clearly left by letter, and without unsettled
sin issues of any sort, they stated four reasons other than what is stated in the letter.
They only agreed to give me the reasons in writing because I demanded they do so. The
letter speaks for itself, especially the part where they instruct me not to be concerned
with their hermeneutics. For those who don’t know: the way they interpret the Scriptures.
If anyone reading this would ever have a leader say that to them–I’m sure they would run
and not look back. And hey, just for the heck of it, I will add that I got a email from a
young lady during that time who stated the following to me: “I just thought you might find
it interesting that the Clearcreek elders know I am living with my boyfriend. I am a
member there and I even emailed them and told them so. They are not going to do anything
about it.”
Aaron, Now my point. That church is a highly respected New Calvinist church in the
movement. The pastor is close friends with John Piper and his elders. Stuart Scott, Paul
David Tripp, and Robert Jones, speak there often. DA Carson, Jerry Bridges, Kent
Hughes(sp?) have also spoken there. They are the NANC training center for the state of
Ohio. They have a particularly close relationship with David Powlison and the gang at
CCEF. One of their elders, Chad Bresson, has been coined “the golden boy of New Covenant
Theology for the Northeast.” Bresson was a keynote speaker at this years John Bunyan
convention along with the who’s who of New Covenant theology (Zaspel, Reisinger (sp?) et
al). The founder of the church is on the board of the New Calvinist “Biblical Counseling
Coalition” and is the sitting President of NANC.
Aaron, that church is the face of New Calvinism.
Furthermore, I debated with those elders for hours (hundreds) on these issues and it is
the only reason I have some of the insight I now have. Do I now resolve to use that
opportunity to expose the movement? You had better believe it. Originally, I thought they
were taking CH, GS, NCT, RHH and trying to form them into a consistent theological system
themselves. I later found out that they were propagating a prepackaged system. My
conversations with them is how I was able to make all of the connections, and even more
information is forthcoming. Actually, for a time they had me almost convinced and at that
time offered to pay for my college education–I declined.
BTW, me accepting the Gospel Sanctification doctrine was required for me to be released
from the discipline. During that time, I learned how New Calvinist “Redemptive Church
Discipline” really works. If you ever run into DA Carson, ask him about it–he may even
tell you the truth. I remained in the discipline for four months until I realized that I
would have to embrace Gospel Sanctification in order to be released from the discipline.
So I left and was declared an unbeliever. That’s when they instructed my wife to divorce
me unless I repented and returned to the Chapel, and I was going to in order to keep my
family. In a meeting with an elder from CCC, myself, and the pastor of Grace Covenant
church in Beavercreek, Ohio, I stated the following: “I will return, I have no choice
because you have my family.” However, I was confronted by other pastors who demanded that
I take a stand and not return.
My former wife and I are on good terms. I speak to her often. She is a good person. Susan
and I would do anything for her at any time. We will always be there for her. Please do
not preach to me about forgiveness, I know a little about it. My stand has saved at least
one marriage and 30 Christians from being brought up on church discipline for unbiblical
reasons. I was instrumental in turning 2 churches away from this doctrine, and there is
much more work to be done. learning what I have would be impossible without the
unfortunate experience that devastated my family, and I intend to use that opportunity to
educate God’s people.
Take a hard look at the real face of New Calvinism Aaron. CCC is highly acclaimed among
them. So you aren’t like them? Give it time–you will be.To some extent, you already are.
Here in this comment, you arrogantly make all kinds of judgements about me–writing off my
doctrinal concerns as a personnel vendetta. To the contrary, I have been put in a unique
position to know things about the movement that would be otherwise very difficult to know,
if not impossible.
How will I know if I am making an impact? The personal attacks will come. When you can’t
defeat the message, kill the messenger. The CCC elders announced at a Sunday Morning
service that I had been declared an unbeliever but stated NO reasons why. They left my
church family of 20 years, some of them former parishioners of mine, to their own
imaginations as far as reasons. Many assumed I committed adultery and wouldn’t repent of
it. Many of them I had personally counseled and discipled. I wouldn’t trade the experience
for anything. It taught me to simply be concerned with what the Lord thinks of me and not
men. It has equipped me for this particular ministry in very real ways. And there is much
work to be done.
Wow, this blog has been up for three years and I have never written of this. I have stuck
with the doctrinal issues (truth). Some readers have mentioned that they saw the blog–no
surprise–the thing gets some serious hits.
However, this blog has always been about the truth and sound doctrine and will continue as
such. The fight continues as God gives strength.
paul
LikeLike
Randy
http://wp.me/pmd7S-S8
LikeLike
Paul, I’m sorry to hear that it is not possible for you to keep from imputing the sins of some to all of us. If you insist on making slander your modus operandi, I have no more interest in what you have to say.
Go ahead and finish writing your blog responses to me. I won’t read another word. I will be too busy enjoying life and going ever deeper into the gospel.
LikeLike
Dr, O’Kelly,
” I will be too busy enjoying life and going ever deeper into the gospel.”
That’s why, when I get time, I will be writing a letter to your church, heavily weighted with documentation concerning your dangerous theology. Consider this the first step. You have falsely accused me of many things in your writings. Those false accusations will be documented in the letter to your congregation. If you refuse to repent and ask my forgiveness for your false accusations, I will send the letter. If your congregation and leadership refuse to deal with the issue, the letter will be made public. The ball is in your court. My email is pmd@inbox.com I can supply a phone number for you to contact me.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Since I made my comment in public, I should also make public an excerpt from a private correspondence between myself and Mr. Dohse:
“I brought your divorce into the discussion. Normally, I stay away from the personal lives of people that I am talking with, but in this case, since you had already participated in the creation of a website to make the details of your divorce public, I decided that you wanted that to be a public issue. You will also notice that nowhere in my comment did I accuse you of wrongdoing with respect to that matter. As I said, I don’t know the whole story, but if your version of events is true, you were wronged. I don’t think I sinned against you by simply bringing up a discussion that you had already made public.
This, however, may be the key part of my comment that is troubling you:
‘As I said, I don’t know the story, but it sounds like you have been through a terrible ordeal, and those who were supposed to care for your soul instead counseled your wife to leave you (do I have that correct?). You apparently blame New Calvinist theology for what has happened to you, so you are lashing out, not only against the particular people involved in your own story, but against all New Calvinists from whom you can detect any whiff of the kind of theology that you blame for the destruction of your marriage. Am I seeing this correctly?’
Taking a second look at that statement, I can see where I probably went too far. I can’t read your motives. It seems clear that you do blame NC for your divorce, but that does not necessarily mean that all of your posts are driven by that motive. I can’t know that for sure, so I ask your forgiveness for overreaching as I sought to guess your motives in this.
I hope that we can put this behind us now.”
LikeLike
Aaron,
You rightly assess; I am completely satisfied with your response and it is deeply appreciated more than you will ever know. Yes, we can put this behind us now.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Thanks, Paul. I am glad to hear that.
LikeLike
Paul,
I didn’t see anything wrong with what Aaron wrote in the first place. I thought he was very compassionate and right. You are bitter. And not only bitter; you are twisted. Talk to your buddy Jay Adams and get some help. You have lost it. You are CRAZY! People are beginning to realize you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. I intend to try to help them see that more. People aren’t saying or believing what you are accusing them of. You are breaking one of the big ten. Stop lying about God’s people.
LikeLike
I know you fancy yourself as some sort of defender or the truth and feel I am attacking you because of your great godliness. That simply isn’t true. All heretics believe that stuff. The truth is you are an idiot who thinks he sees what no one else in the world can see. IT ISN’T THERE. YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. I know from personal experience that you misrepresent what people believe. You have lied about me repeatedly. God is going to judge you for your lies. Feel good about your “defense if the truth” if you like, but the truth is you are a wicked liar..
LikeLike