Paul's Passing Thoughts

ABWE Scandal Has Too Much Gospel

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on November 16, 2011

The present-day church is saturated with the gospel, and that’s not good news. It’s not good news for the church because the church doesn’t need more and more justification; we are already justified in full because we believe in what Christ did for us on the cross. The gospel is for the lost, not the church. We are ministers of the gospel. Our message is, “Be reconciled to God!” (2Corinthians 5:18-21). We are already reconciled, this would seem evident. Have Christians become so mindless that they have actually bought into  the idea that the saved still need salvation?

We are justified in full. It is a onetime declaration by God. It’s done. In fact, it is so done that we were already considered to be glorified before the Earth was even created (Ephesians 1:4, Romans 8:30). How much more done can you get? Nothing that happens in sanctification can change that declaration. But today’s Christianity is saturated with a doctrine that teaches that justification must be maintained by good works. To be specific, it’s salvation by antinomian good works. Let me explain.

If justification must be maintained by good works, the works would have to be perfect, right? That excludes us. So who must do the good works to maintain the justification? Right. Jesus obeys for us. They deceptively call this “justification by faith alone,” while deliberately omitting the rest of what they believe: justification and sanctification are the same thing. They believe sanctification maintains our standing with God until glorification. They deceptively call this “progressive sanctification” when it is really progressive justification. Therefore, any effort on our part to keep the law would supposedly be an attempt to maintain justification. That’s where this doctrine becomes antinomian.

Who’s “they”? They are the New Calvinists and they are everywhere. And they are in the process of drowning the ABWE scandal (concerning the former Bangladesh  missionary children [FAMC]) with the gospel. They will keep feeding this issue with “gospel” until it goes away and the raping of children will continue in the name of the gospel. As illustrated in chapter 14 of The Truth About New Calvinism, this is exactly what went on in the world’s largest Baptist church for years. The victims were shamed for wanting justice because of reasons like the following: “We are all sinners saved by grace.” “Justice? That just means you’re self-righteous.” “We are all totally depraved and in need of daily salvation. Besides, if this ministry folds just because sinners sin, the message of the gospel will be silenced.” “Real Christians forgive the way Christ forgave them, and move on with their lives. That’s the gospel.” “You’re a glutton, and brother Bob likes little boys; so what? We all need the gospel everyday just as much as we did the day we were saved.” “What happened is irrelevant; we aren’t here to be the gospel, we are here to preach the gospel. It’s not about what we do; it’s about what Jesus has done.” Sound familiar?

According to the New Calvinists, the answer to everything is the supposed practical application of New Calvinism which is Gospel Contemplationism. By contemplating the gospel and coming to a deeper and deeper appreciation/understanding of what Christ did for us, and continues to do for us, “gospel transformation” takes place. In their book, this is what all parties need in order to make this go away in the name of Jesus. More gospel for Donn Ketchum and more gospel for the FAMC. A deeper understanding of the gospel would lead Ketchum to repentance and lead the FAMC to forgive, and all would be well. In my own personal situation, I was told by New Calvinists that my continual effort to hold them accountable for what they did to my family was proof that I didn’t really understand the gospel. I was also told that I valued myself more than “a whole ministry.” Others who stood with me were threatened. One church told my son-in-law that they would ruin his ministry and his name if he stood with me.

In light of the Penn State allegations and the comparison to the ABWE scandal, the articles that have been held up as revelatory and edifying make my point. Each had its own thesis regarding the symptom, but all concluded with the same solution: the gospel. The first article was from pastor Daniel Darling. His thesis was that insular communities are the cause of such behavior. Then he concluded with these thoughts:

So what’s the cure? For churches and Christian organizations, the gospel is the only medicine. Our sinful condition and helpless state before God, our need of the redemption of the Cross, and our dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit should all serve as a constant reminder that nobody is above the worst kinds of sins.

So in these situations the only cure for churches is more salvation? More redemption? Do you believe that? I hope not. The Bible is very specific in regard to what the church is to do in these situations, and more salvation is not included. Here is how Darling concluded:

We should pray for the gospel to penetrate that campus during this dark hour. This is more than a story. There are souls at stake. And, yet those of us who live thousands of miles removed from Penn State should pray that God would use this to sharpen our leadership in creating open, authentic, gospel-saturated communities of faith.

Gospel saturation? Is that the answer? No.

The second post was from the Practical Theology for Women blog. The author’s thesis in this second post was that Christians often overemphasize authority over advocacy. The solution? Again, the gospel:

If the gospel is truly our foundation in Christian ministry, we have hope for redemption and transformation when we choose humble responses that seek to correct our mistakes. Humble repentance, not defensiveness, is the absolute key to dealing with past failures, and meditation on God’s strong admonition to do justice for the oppressed is key for the future.

Notice the emphasis on Christians seeking more redemption. She also alludes to the New Calvinist/Gospel Contemplationism tenet of deep repentance which I will not delve into here. In another post, she further defines how she perceives the gospel:

Be wary of the “gospel-centered” teacher whose gospel ends at penal substitution, for they have nothing for life after salvation except pulling yourself up by the bootstraps. The gospel becomes the source of OBLIGATION instead of the source of EQUIPPING. You’re exhorted to stop gossiping or sleeping around or overeating because it makes the gospel look bad. That’s gospel obligation that misses completely the value and power of imputed righteousness. The true gospel doesn’t obligate you to do good. No, it EQUIPS you to do good. There is a profound difference. That battle with your weight, the temptation to gossip, anger with your children—the gospel equips you to do battle with sin with the very same power that raised Christ from the dead. You have a lavish spiritual bank account, and this is integral to the very good news of all Christ’s life and death has accomplished for you.

Notice that sanctification is either all pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps or all of Christ. The fact that it is both is excluded.

The Third post was from Tim Henderson who I believe is a chaplain for Campus Crusade for Christ at Penn State. His Thesis was that lack of true love was the cause of what happened there. The cure? Again, the gospel:

He loved radically, gave himself away. Not just figuratively, but literally.  He laid down his life as a sacrifice on the cross to protect us from the punishment our sins deserve.  He loves you just as much as he loves himself.

To the extent that this penetrates your heart [the gospel] it will transform you and make you love better. It will give you not just the affection of love, but the courage of love. A love that moves to protect. That moves into danger.  A love that doesn’t measure obligation, but that suffers so that the beloved won’t.

Also notice that Henderson excludes obligation (or duty)  from being an element of love or at least a catalyst for love in some situations. True love is a narrow concept that comes only from contemplating the gospel. And in all three of these articles, accountability and justice is excluded and replaced with everybody, perpetrators and victims alike, embracing the shame of it all as common sinners saved by grace. This is not the biblical prescription for dealing with these situations.

In our day, there are two major schools of thought concerning sanctification, and the difference can be best defined by a longtime persecutor of Jay Adams, David Powlison. These two men represent the two schools of thought in our day. During a lecture at John Piper’s church, Powlison said the following:

This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.  And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that.

In all of this, the FAMC will be hearing many voices. They would do well to determine which camp the voices are coming from. Each camp will yield radically different solutions to their endeavor.

paul

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Tim Scott's avatar Tim Scott said, on November 17, 2011 at 12:00 AM

    Paul, you said, “Who’s “they”? They are the New Calvinists and they are everywhere. And they are in the process of drowning the ABWE scandal (concerning the former Bangladesh missionary children [FAMC]) with the gospel. They will keep feeding this issue with “gospel” until it goes away and the raping of children will continue in the name of the gospel.” so I take it that you personally know that this is taking place (GS guys telling people to get over it and drowning this whole scandal in the gospel). Or are you using this to attack Gospel Sanctification? BTW I don’t know of a single GS guy (who is worth their weight in salt) who would tell anyone who has suffered horrific tragedy like rape or abuse to just, “get over it”. If they did then they don’t understand the true nature of the gospel or GS.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on November 17, 2011 at 7:50 AM

      Tim,
      Of course they don’t come right out and say “get over it” anymore than they do “Jesus obeys for us.” They are told that to continue to hold folks accountable is NOT forgiving them the way they have been forgiven according to the gospel. Among many other things mentioned in the post.

      Like

  2. Arron's avatar Arron said, on November 17, 2011 at 8:00 AM

    How would you answer the objection that the new testament applies the language of salvation in an on going way to those already justified fully? E.g. “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” – 1 Cor 1:18 ? Notice the word “saved” (σῳζομένοις), a term linked to conversion (1 Thess 2:16), in clear application to those who [u]already[/u] believe (Paul includes himself in the “us” and the present tense “being saved” is a correct translation of the Greek “μωρία [b]ἐστίν[/b] τοῖς δὲ σῳζομένοις”.

    My concern is that by reacting to the hypocrisy of some, you dismiss the clear New Testament emphasis upon Christians continuing to understand and appreciate the Cross of Christ, and it’s relevance to their lives and sanctification – wanting to grow in understanding of the implications of the Justification is not the same as acting like the works produced by the Holy Spirit in my sanctification (contributed to by my understanding of my justification!) contribute to my acceptance with God. You seem, at least from my understand, as someone who would consider themselves a “New Calvinist” (despite my dislike for labels other than providing a theological shorthand) that you’re arguing against something that New Calvinism doesn’t actually advocate at all – how can it possibly be bad news for Christians to meditate on what Christ has done at the Cross? Surely that’s entirely the reason that Christ Himself instituted the Lord’s Supper? – “Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me”.

    No flaming – just wanted to engage with you.

    In Christian Love,

    Arron

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on November 17, 2011 at 9:34 AM

      Arron,
      There is a SENSE in which we are saved, being saved, and will be saved. But that doesn’t mean that justification and sanctification are fused together. Furthermore, “gospel” does not mean “salvation” exclusively. The Sermon on the Mount is a good example of this. It was the content of the “good news of the kingdom” that Christ was preaching. It is very good news that we can participate in separating ourselves from this present world. The sermon is clearly about Christian living, and not salvation. New Calvinists make every reference to the gospel as pertaining to justification. Clearly, throughout Acts, the apostles preached the “good news of the kingdom AND the Lord Jesus Christ.”

      When justification and sanctification are fused together, it separates the law from Christian use because all efforts point back to justification and its supposed need to be maintained until the day of judgement. This is right out of Seventh-Day Adventist theology. Present-day New Calvinism came out of the Progressive Adventist movement which combined Reformed theology with Adventist Investigative Judgement theology. Today’s Progressive Adventists and New Calvinists share nearly the exact same doctrine. The necessary separation from Christians and the law, except for law positive, and law negative , is what makes New Calvinism an antinomian doctrine. Orthodox Christianity teaches that the new birth enables Christians to participate in God’s kingdom work via the wisdom of the law and the aid of the Holy Spirit, and apart from justification for purposes of the judgement.

      New Calvinists connect the new birth to justification and a total work of Christ OUTSIDE OF US. John Piper recently echoed the official Progressive Adventist position that disconnecting the new birth from maintaining justification is making “sanctification the bases of justification.” New Calvinism replaces an internal Objective new birth with Gospel Contemplationism which presents the perfect works of Christ to the Father and not our own. I go into all of this in detail in The Truth About New Calvinism.
      paul

      Like

  3. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on November 17, 2011 at 12:00 PM

    Aaron,

    You just need to know Paul doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. It will go easier that way.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on November 17, 2011 at 12:15 PM

      Ya know Randy, I’ve written my book and I’m just completely at peace with letting the people decide that for themselves. And I like to post your comments because it reveals the real spirit of the “humble” New Calvinists.

      Like

  4. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on November 17, 2011 at 8:26 PM

    No, it just means you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Anyone who thinks Ernest Reisinger held to NTC has to have been smoking something.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on November 17, 2011 at 9:12 PM

      Again, I made my case in the addendum of the second addition. I am very comfortable with people deciding for themselves based on what I presented.

      Like

  5. lydia's avatar lydia said, on November 17, 2011 at 9:50 PM

    “BTW I don’t know of a single GS guy (who is worth their weight in salt) who would tell anyone who has suffered horrific tragedy like rape or abuse to just, “get over it”.”

    Not sure what GS means but this is exactly what SGM pastors have told countless victims of sexual abuse from within their churches. There are a ton of stories on blogs concerning how the pastors (this is systemic because it has happend at many sgm churches) told the victims (families) not to call the authorities but to immediately forgive the perp. In a few situations they chided the mom for wanting to leave her husband who was raping his daughter. They even told the mom to send the daughter away so her marriage could stay intact. A CJ is a “New Calvinist” supported and defended by Al Mohler.

    Like

  6. Heather Ingram's avatar Heather Ingram said, on November 18, 2011 at 3:25 PM

    gracewriterrandy: “You just need to know Paul doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about”

    You know it might be just a coincidence but the pharisee’s said the same thing of Jesus…..just sayin’!

    Like

  7. Unknown's avatar Anonymous said, on November 20, 2011 at 6:00 PM

    Strange Heather, I seem to have missed that in my reading of the New Testament. What was that reference again?

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on November 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM

      Anon,
      Looks like you just got beat up by a girl.
      paul

      Like

  8. Heather Ingram's avatar Heather Ingram said, on November 21, 2011 at 12:21 PM

    lol seriously? Well, ok you asked :

    “Many of them said, “He has a demon, and is insane; why listen to him?”
    (John 10:20)

    Has a familiar ring to it doesn’t it……

    Like

  9. gracewriterrandy's avatar gracewriterrandy said, on November 22, 2011 at 9:59 AM

    The difference is that Jesus DID know and speak the truth. And, the reference I was asking for was where does the NT say “Jesus doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.” That is because such a reference doesn’t exist.

    Like

  10. Heather Ingram's avatar Heather Ingram said, on November 22, 2011 at 9:36 PM

    Well, it would seem to me, that if someone is called “insane” then that prob imply’s that the general consonances is that people don’t believe he “has a clue” if they think he’s insane and demon possessed! If you look at someone and say, “You’re insane” would you believe anything they have to say worth believing in? NO! lol, you’ll say, “He ain’t got a clue, he’s insane!” In other words that is what you’re saying….

    You asked for a reference in which people looked at Jesus and rolled their eyes and said, “Don’t listen to Him , he’s nuts” lol I gave you one, you can’t back out now lol I was merely comparing what you said of Paul to what the Jews said of Jesus, too bad for you, there is some similarities….

    Like


Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply