The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 6; Concerning Larroux’s Endorsement of Tchividjian’s Latest Book
The problem with Tchividjian is the same problem with Larroux. Read this excellent review of a book fervently endorsed by Larroux on Southwood’s website, Tchivividjian’s
“Jesus + Nothing = Everything” http://www.aggressivesanctification.com/
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Hi Paul,
I have read your posts about Southwood. In several places you make a distinction between what you call “New Calvinism” and “Old Calvinism”. I put it in quotes only because these terms are not familiar to me. I have also read that there are those in the PCA that you endorse. I have read your critique of the Founders Movement and your concern over its effect on the SBC. If you have time and would be willing, I would appreciate knowing your opinion of the following (if you have written on this elsewhere, a link would be fine):
1) What is your view of the “Five Points of Calvinism”?
2) What is your view of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms?
3) Are you concerned about any and/or all calvinistic doctrine in the SBC?
4) Would you consider David Platt’s views to be antinomian, NC, and/or harmful to the SBC?
Thanks
LikeLike
Greg,
I am stopping by to check email from time to time, but I’m primary spending time with family today. Unlike the other email/comments, yours will take a little time. I will answer your questions tonight, and they are good ones.
LikeLike
Greg,
Long day (and a great one) with the family and reading emails. I will begin to answer your questions here and then reply in full in the morning. I believe Romans 8:30 teaches that believers were justified completely before creation. I also believe that our glorification was guaranteed before creation as well. Nothing in sanctification can change that. Sanctification has NO bearing on justification. Justification is a totally done deal. Our understanding of sanctification and the execution of our role in it can effect how we experience the new birth. I believe a lot of Calvinism is based on logical conclusions. “Limited Atonement”? Sigh, beats me, I simply don’t know, but either view doesn’t change the reality of Romans 8:30. Did God foreknow or fore-love? Again, neither changes the reality of Romans 8:30. Total depravity? I doubt it, because the “work of the law” is also written on the hearts of unbelievers (Romans 2:15). Unlimited grace? Yes. Perseverance of the saints? Yes. Irresistible grace? I suppose. To tell you the truth, because of what I have experienced and learned in the past four years, I am revisiting the whole five points of Calvinism issue. Let me repeat that: I AM REVISITING THE ISSUE. Did Calvin believe that total depravity also applied to the saints? See what I mean?
paul
LikeLike
Greg, continued:
1) What is your view of the “Five Points of Calvinism”?
I believe Romans 8:30 teaches that believers were justified completely before creation. I also believe that our glorification was guaranteed before creation as well. Nothing in sanctification can change that. Sanctification has NO bearing on justification. Justification is a totally done deal. Our understanding of sanctification and the execution of our role in it
canDOES effect how we experience the new birth. I believe a lot of Calvinism (or how Calvinism is often presented) is based on logical conclusions concerning the mysteries of God. JC Ryle has aptly noted that there is plenty of mystery in the doctrine of election. “Limited Atonement”? Sigh, beats me, I simply don’t know, but either view doesn’t change the reality of Romans 8:30. Did God foreknow or fore-love? Again, neither changes the reality of Romans 8:30. Total depravity? I doubt it, because the “work of the law” is also written on the hearts of unbelievers (Romans 2:15). Unlimited grace? Yes. Perseverance of the saints? Yes. Irresistible grace? I suppose. To tell you the truth, because of what I have experienced and learned in the past four years, I am revisiting the whole five points of Calvinism issue. Let me repeat that: I AM REVISITING THE ISSUE. Did Calvin believe that total depravity also applied to the saints? See what I mean? That discussion is paramount for us today, but where is the discussion?LikeLike
Greg, Continued:
1A) Statement: “In several places you make a distinction between what you call ‘New Calvinism” and “Old Calvinism’. I put it in quotes only because these terms are not familiar to me.” This is also paramount to our day, what is the difference between the two? I have learned that distinguishing between the two in reference to Romans 8:30 is core. Don’t miss this: New Calvinism started with the basis of the “Awakening” movement started by Robert Brinsmead. It was VERY good news for Seventh-day Adventists who were raised on the investigative judgement doctrine. Ellen White had lengthy treatises that attempted to explain how we were saved by grace alone, but needed to keep ourselves fit for the investigative judgement. Simply put, salvation acquits us of past failures against the law of God, but with the help of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, we could maintain the perfection necessary to be fit for the judgement. Brinsmead’s first theological frame launched the Awakening movement, and it was based on his interpretation of Romans 8:30 (which he drew from in-depth study on the Reformers and the Reformation). The absence of sanctification in that verse indicated to Brinsmead that justification and sanctification were the same thing. Supposedly, the traditional view of sanctification ADDED an additional STEP to justification that was not Scriptural. Conclusion? Awesome news for SDA: Jesus stands in the judgment for us!!
But the fundamental flaw in this doctrine is the SDA belief that justification must be maintained. The premise is flawed. Because justification must be maintained, everything after justification must serve to maintain it, so justification and sanctification, for all practical purposes, must be the same thing. About the time Brinsmead came up with this conclusion, and because it caused a mass revival in the SDA, the Australian Forum project was started to make it all work together in a consistent system lest this rediscovery of lost Reformed doctrine would be lost again. In fact, they sought to establish the “fact” that the Reformation was founded on this very doctrine known as the centrality of the objective gospel. look around, they did their job well.
Hence, this is the fundamental difference between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism: Old Calvinism teaches that justification and sanctification are separate because justification does not need to be maintained, it is finished and complete. That’s why sanctification is not mentioned in Romans 8:30, because sanctification does NOTHING to complete or maintain justification. It is such a done deal that Romans 8:30 states that we are already glorified–before the world was ever created!!
In contrast, New Calvinists believe that justification and sanctification cannot be separated because to do so would be to add an additional step to justification that would include our efforts, because everything points back to justification being maintained. This can be clearly seen in their ongoing statements, including the constant “the ground of our justification” verbiage. The distinction here couldn’t be more vital! Old Calvinists believe that nothing we do in sanctification can earn justification because justification is complete and the full righteousness of God has been credited to our account. The Old Calvinist now beckons all believers to experience that reality by being obedient to our role in sanctification. Can we try to earn God’s favor in sanctification and thereby unwittingly make that the same as attempting to keep ourselves justified? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s impossible! IT IS FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!
Not so with New Calvinism. Because the two are not separate, doing things that make those things the “grounds for our justification” becomes very tricky business, and eternity depends on it, so you better rely on the New Calvinists to sort it all out. Buyer beware! The formula plays it safe (like the servant who hid his talents in the ground), our sanctification is “grounded” in justification via being sanctified the same way we were justified, ie., the gospel, preaching it to ourselves everyday, and “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” As I document in “The Truth About New Calvinism,” THIS ALL CAME FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FORUM. All of these guys who seem so spiritual and wise bought into a Seventh-day Adventist doctrine unawares. It would be comical if not for the carnage they are leaving on the landscape of Christianity.
paul
LikeLike
Greg, Continued:
2) “What is your view of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms?” Not much. I am a Scripturist and put little value on the decrees of men.
3) “Are you concerned about any and/or all calvinistic doctrine in the SBC?” I am NOT the least bit concerned with Old Calvinism in the SBC. In fact, the SBC is in desperate need of wisdom concerning sanctification as taught by the likes of Jay Adams. And much to the dismay of my Southern Baptist brothers. OC has NEVER caused trouble in the SBC. The SBC needs to unite with OC to get rid of NC, then they can go back to attacking OC if they want to. They would be much better off. But the “aggressive Calvinism” they are now fighting is NOT, I repeat, NOT, OC.
4) “Would you consider David Platt’s views to be antinomian, NC, and/or harmful to the SBC? Thanks.” Yes, and yes. And no: I don’t consider Platt’s views to be “harmful” to the SBC, I LIKEN HIS VIEWS TO THOSE THAT WILL DESTROY THE SBC.
paul
LikeLike
Paul,
I am beginning to understand why you and I have had difficulties discussing NC. In reality, much of your problem may not be that you don’t like NC but that you don’t like C at all. You are right that the doctrines of sovereign grace require rational and logical thought. Much of the NT Scriptures are built on rational thought and logic. Even though they are clear, we will not understand them unless we think.
In my view, and in the view of most Calvinists, justification did not occur before the foundation of the world. I liken God’s before time to a blueprint. It is necessary to the proper construction of the building, but you can’t live in it. Additionally, even the accomplishment of redemption does not, in itself, justify us in the subjective or existential sense of the word. Paul wrote in Eph. 2 that before conversion we continued do be “children of wrath just like the rest.” The house has been finished in Christ redemptive work and by the application of that redemption God moves us into it in effectual calling and regeneration. Until we are united to Christ in reality, we are not yet justified.
I agree with you that that work is a finished work we cannot add to or maintain it by anything we do.
I know you don’t care for Confessions of Faith and neither do I as authoritative statements. The Scriptures are our final standard and authority for what we believe and what we do. Still we can find where we agree or disagree with Confession and Catechisms in the light of the Scriptures. As a Baptist, I don’t agree with everything the WCF or catechism states; still I find in them unbelievably helpful pegs to hang my thoughts on.
I don’t really understand why you would want to throw away OC in the SBC after you use them to get rid of NC. OC is the best thing that could happen to the SBC.
LikeLike