The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 13; Romans 8:30, Old Calvinists, and New Calvinists
Sometimes the answer to a question makes a post:
Submitted on 2011/11/25 at 11:55 am | In reply to Greg.
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 judgment 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 judgment. 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 judgment. 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 every day, 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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
More differences: the New Calvinists specialize in doctrines of presumption and they oppose Old Calvinists who taught/teach that nobody can be happy in Jesus if they don’t “TRUST AND OBEY.” In New Calvinist doctrine the idea that “the face of the Lord is against those who do evil” has nothing to do with “Faith Alone” Christians. Somehow they miss the point when Jesus said: “You are my friends if you do what I say.” Further, foundational teaching for every “Old Calvinist” child is that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This fear, a spiritual gift, turns us from doing evil. Grace is something that teaches our hearts to fear (Amazing Grace). It’s deceiving, presumptuous doctrines that cause many to call out “Lord, Lord” when they don’t do what He says. Question: do the words “Away from Me, you who practice lawlessness (antinomianism)” have any meaning?
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Paul,
I still don’t understand why you have a problem with the phrase, “the ground [basis] of our justification.” Do you believe our justification can be without any foundation?
LikeLike
GR Randy,
The “foundation” is God’s election. But everything in the realm of sanctification is said to be the same as justification. Justification made sanctification possible, but they aren’t the same thing. Sanctification IS NOT “justification in action” because justification is a finished work. If sanctification is “justification in action,” then justification is not FINISHED, it’s still doing something, which means it’s a progressive work towards glorification. That’s works salvation if man does any of it (ie., grace/Christ plus works), and antinomianism if Christ does it all. In other words, progressive justification (or what is deceptively called “progressive sanctification” by New Calvinists), or the belief that “sanctification is justification in action,” can only result in two things: works salvation or antinomianism. On the flip side, if sanctification is completely separate in operation, Christians can have an aggressive role in it because it has no bearing on the finished work of justification. That’s why New Calvinists, in essence, deny the new birth as being an objective recreation that is in us and of us. They believe the new birth is a “formation of Christ” that is displayed through us, but we are still spiritually dead. An actual recreation of our personhood makes it possible to colabor with Christ, and NC don’t like that idea.
This is the crux of the New Calvinist issue: Brinsmead merely converted Adventist doctrine from works salvation to antinomianism. When Justification is progressive and not a finished work, somebody has to keep the work going, so it’s works salvation. When we do even part of that by keeping the law, that’s Jesus plus works or law-keeping. When Jesus does all of the law-keeping for us, we are obviously not obligated to keep the law. In fact, to do so would be to participate in the fruits of justification, which we dare not do. This is just backdoor antinomianism.
LikeLike
Paul,
Election is not the foundation. If Jesus had not obeyed for us [whether you take that as active or passive] we would not have been justified. The fact of God’s choosing us does not provide a legal basis on which he declares us righteous. It is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that forms the basis or the foundation of our justification.
I agree that justification and sanctification are not the same.
I agree that sanctification is not justification in action. God makes us in sanctification what he declared us to be in justification. Justification declares us to possess a righteousness that is not ours; sanctification works in us a righteousness that is ours.
Regeneration is not objective. Objective indicates outside of us and outside of our experience. Regeneration is a work God performs within us. It is likened to a heart transplant–removing the heart of stone and replacing it with a heart of flesh. The stated purpose of that work is that we might obey God’s eternal righteous standard. Jesus’ obedience to death does not replace our obedience; it makes it possible since because of our union with him, we have died to the reign and power of sin and are now alive toward God.
LikeLike
GR Randy,
Christ was elected by God the Father: Isa.42:1 and 1Peter2:6
LikeLike
There is still no redemption apart from his death, and therefore no righteous basis on which to declare us righteous. Neither God’s choice of Christ nor his choice of us in him provided the basis of our justification. The apostle Paul makes it clear in Romans three that the purpose of the cross was to provide a just basis for God to forgive sins. “that he might be just, and at the same time the justifier of those who believe.” He accomplished this by placarding Jesus as the propitiating sacrifice. That basis did not exist until Jesus died and we are not justified until we believe the gospel.
I believe it is important to distinguish between the plan, accomplishment and the application of redemption.
LikeLike
Randy,
Neither is there any salvation without God’s calling. Neither is there any salvation for those who are not given to Christ or drawn to him.
LikeLike
Paul,
I agree, but these are not the basis of our justification. They would fall into the application category, not the accomplishment category.
LikeLike
Soooo, forgive me, but until God decided to do something, what was going to happen?
LikeLike
Nothing, but we are discussing the righteous basis on which he did something, namely, justified us, when he did.
LikeLike
Which? God sacrificing His only Son? Or Christ’s obedience to the cross?
LikeLike
Both
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Let me clarify my four letter answer. It was the same act, but the persons of the Trinity acted in concert in its accomplishment. The Son acting as our High Priest offered himself without spot to God. The Father delivered up the Son to crucifixion and the Spirit supported Jesus in his obedience.
LikeLike