Paul's Passing Thoughts

“Lastly, what is the difference between this doctrine and the ‘wicked, lazy’ servant who hid his talent in the ground, and then returned  to the  master only what was initially given?”

I was sent a very interesting post by one of my readers the other day. It was a piece written by Southern Baptist pastor Wade Burleson, who I understand as having significant influence in the SBC. The post is entitled, “Therefore, Knowing the Terror of the Lord, We Persuade Men“ (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2011/11/therefore-knowing-terror-of-lord-we.html). The article is an outstanding specimen of New Calvinism and worthy of discussion. Again, if Southwood is taken over by the New Calvinist insurgents, at least everyone will know why it happened. And maybe this post will help by ringing a few bells heard at Southwood.

Like most New Calvinists, especially John Piper, Burleson likes to show his intellectual prowess by mentioning in his profile under Interests that he reads the classical works of the Puritans. Ever tried to read those? Does that make you feel inferior? That’s the idea. Go figure, all New Calvinist leaders read the Puritans and have no trouble understanding that stuff at all. Gee, what’s wrong with us? Burleson’s favorite books are “The Everlasting Love of God To His Elect” by John Gill and “The Life of God in the Soul of Man” by Henry Scougal, the same favorite books of John Piper. Gee, what a coincidence. Burleson’s blog contains 32 recent articles with Piper as the focal point.

However, Burleson is somewhat unique among New Calvinists by showing the New Calvinist kinship to Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology. Most New Calvinists stay aloof from this connection because it enables the possible connecting of dots from the Australian Forum to the present-day movement. Zens also embodies the Adventist flavor of the movement as well. I have been contacted by a discernment ministry which I will not name that is focusing on Zens’ Adventist leanings. Burleson says this about Zens on his blog:

One of my favorite theologians is Jon Zens. Jon edits the quarterly periodical called Searching Together, formerly known as the Baptist Reformation Review. Jon is thoroughly biblical, imminently concerned with the Scriptures …. The best $10.00 you will ever spend is the yearly subscription to Searching Together (http://www.wadeburleson.org/2010/09/searching-together-edited-by-jon-zens.html).

Oh, by the way, Robert Brinsmead wrote several articles in the BRR at Zens’ behest to defend the doctrine they were systematizing, The Centrality of the Objective Gospel  against a brutal onslaught by Reformed Baptists. The doctrine ended up splitting a large group of Reformed Baptist in the 80’s resulting in the formation of the Continental Baptists. According to Zens, he changed the name of the Journal to accommodate Adventist readers (The Truth About New Calvinism p. 53).

Now let’s look at the article. It begins this way:

Those who have read Grace and Truth to You for any amount of time know that this author is persuaded the Bible teaches that the eternal rewards of Christians are those rewards–and only those rewards–which are earned by Christ. It is Christ’s obedience to the will and law of the Father that obtains for God’s adopted children our inheritance. It is Christ’s perfect obedience which brings to sinners the Father’s enduring favor and guarantees for us our position as co-heirs with Christ.

Notice: Our rewards as Christians working in sanctification and our salvation as co-heirs with Christ are spoken of as being one and the same by virtue of the missing transition New Calvinist communication technique. If the two are the same as believed by New Calvinists, then their relationship to rewards would obviously be the same as well. And it boils down to this: Presbyterians, as well as Southern Baptists historically believe that salvation is monergistic and sanctification is synergistic, so you fill in the blank. This is a sanctification by faith alone doctrine that orthodoxy has always rejected.

Burleson Continues:

Those who have faith in Christ will never appear at any future judgment of God, or be rewarded for their good behavior. Our sins were judged at the cross, and the behavior for which we are rewarded is Christ’s behavior.

Of course, this contradicts the plain sense of Scripture in many places, but is indicative of New Calvinist doctrine. The logical conclusion of his thesis throughout is that rewards in sanctification are (would be) synonymous with being rewarded with justification. The Australian Forum developed a systematic theology that supposedly enables us to bring the works of Christ to the Father in sanctification and not our own. Here is the Forum’s statement on said doctrine:

We say again, Only those are justified who bring to God a life of perfect obedience to the law of God. This is what faith does—it brings to God the obedience of Jesus Christ. By faith the law is fulfilled and the sinner is justified (The Truth About New Calvinism p.116).

Note that justification must be maintained, and the summation of faith, and the very definition thereof, is continually bringing the works of Christ before the Father and not our own. Burleson echoes the forum in the same article:

Again: We Christians reap what we have not sown. One of the tell-tale signs of the legalist is the inability to totally rest in the knowledge that the riches of God’s favor are earned by Christ’s obedience, not his own. It is impossible to be a co-heir with Christ if the rewards of God’s people are dependent on our performance. God’s favor and our eternal rewards are dependent on Christ.

Again, notice the total synthesis of justification and sanctification (using the missing transition). Rewards in sanctification are absolutely synonymous with earning justification. We must bring Christ’s “obedience,” “behavior,” and “performance.” Ie., Christ obeys for us. Some New Calvinists even teach that Christians obey commands they are totally unaware of because it is Christ obeying through us and for us (The Truth About New Calvinism chapter 13).

And of course, the only standard for “making it our goal to please Him” is the law/Scripture. That’s why New Calvinism needs New Covenant Theology, it deals with that part in order to make things fit.

Southwood has a decision to make: they are either going to reject this doctrine or accept it. But Southwood has an edge that may be a contemporary historical precedent; they at least know what the doctrine is. They are not going to be in a position where they have to accept the idea that this is all in regard to a misunderstanding of semantics. Perhaps Larroux will even ask forgiveness for “going too deep—too fast” before the helpless sheep were “ready” for the full truth of the “scandalous gospel.” You know, because he can understand all that deep Puritan theology.

Lastly, what is the difference between this doctrine and the “wicked, lazy” servant who hid his talent in the ground, and then returned  to the  master only what was initially given? I wonder.

paul