The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 14; Exhibit “A” for Southwood
“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
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“Totally rest?” Here we go again. It’s like they never heard of the “wicked, lazy servant.” Or, “Take my yoke upon you, and you will find rest for your souls.” God delivered the people out of Egypt. However, most did not enter His rest. Why? I guess Burleson would say because they didn’t TOTALLY rest. The Isrealites were like Pharisees trying to earn their salvation by self righteousness. Ha!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
No doubt. It reminds me of what Susan has said: “Christ’s yoke is still a yoke, rest for the soul doesn’t necessarily mean a rest from everything.”
LikeLike
Paul,
imagine what these guys would say about Jude 21: “Keep yourselves in God’s love as you WAIT for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.” I think it was Peter who reminds us about the penalty for distorting the Scriptures.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
I wonder how many different ways we are instructed to participate in sanctification. Your example is “keeping [ourselves] in God’s love.” Of course, we know Jude isn’t talking about the finished work of justification, but God’s desire that we fully experience all the present benefits of His love for His children. Hence, page 77 of “The Truth About New Calvinism”: “Third, because the believer’s role is reduced to a point that is not according to Scripture, he/she is deprived of the abundant life in a way God wants us to experience it for His glory and the arousing of curiosity from those who don’t have the hope of the gospel.”
LikeLike
Paul,
My only comment right now is that I feel sorry for anyone who hasn’t read the Puritans. I cut my theological teeth on them 40 years ago. Shame on anyone who hasn’t read “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by Owen. There is not question that Owen and others may be hard to read at times, but they are all well worth the effort/ Thomas Brooks, John Flavel, Thomas Watson are all easily read and worth their weight in gold. I am not writing this to sound superior to anyone. I would just hate for you comments to discourage anyone reading the Puritans. Spurgeon ready them and was immersed in their though. I don’t think he did it to make anyone feel inferior. He did it because they have given us a wealth of theological material to ponder.
It should be clear to anyone who has read my writings that I don’t agree completely with their views, but I would not, for that reason, tell anyone to avoid them..
Randy
LikeLike
Randy,
With me it’s like this: When I am saturated with all 42 (I think?) authors of the Bible, I’ll worry about maybe missing something profound via the Puritans. Nothing personal, just me.
LikeLike
Randy,
I’ve got some Puritan (Jonathan Edwards) writings here. Obviously, what he writes opposes the New Calvinism. Some interesting sermons are:
THE CHARACTER OF PAUL AN EXAMPLE TO CHRISTIANS
Note: Interesting, he doesn’t claim Paul was sinning every nanosecond and chief of sinners.
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SALVATION OF THE SOUL IS TO BE SOUGHT
Note: He says: “There is a work or business which men must enter upon and accomplish, in order to their salvation. Men have no reason to expect to be saved in idleness, or to go to heaven in a way of doing nothing.”
Also good is John Flavel’s: THE METHOD OF GRACE. HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT WORKS.
Note: The book is 560 pages about Sanctification. Apparently, he thought there is more to it than Christian Hedonism.
I’ll have to get “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ” by Owen. Sounds interesting. Thanks!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Sounds like Owen/Edwards were “trying to be the gospel instead of preaching the gospel.”
LikeLike
Paul,
I am not suggesting the Puritans should replace the Scriptures. Paul, requested the books, BUT ESPECIALLY THE PARCHMENTS. The Scriptures cannot be replaced; There are valuable works, however, that can help us understand the Scriptures better. Not sure what you mean by “Sounds like Owen/Edwards were ‘trying to be the gospel instead of preaching the gospel.’”
Bill,
The Death of Death would be in Owen’s Works if you have that. In my opinion, Flavel is hard to beat.
LikeLike
I’ve heard that the “Protestant Work Ethic” came from the Puritans. Today, they would probably be called Papists, self righteous, and legalists by those who merely promote lip service to God.
Arknasas Bill
LikeLike
Actually, the Christian life is all by faith – the just shall live by faith – but true, saving faith enables us to do all that God requires in his word. Paragraph 2 of Chapter 14 of The Westminster Confession of Faith (followed by both the OPC and PCA) says that:
1. By faith, a Christian believes to be true whatsoever is revealed in God’s word;
2. By faith, a Christian acts differently upon that which each individual passage contains;
3. By faith, a Christian yields obedience to the commands of God;
4. By faith, a Christian trembles at the threatenings of God; and
5. By faith, a Christian embraces the promises of God for this life and the one to come.
The paragraph then says, “But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace. So, does this mean a Christian who rests upon Christ alone does not either progress in sanctification or do good works? The Confession covers this quite well in Chapter 19 (The Law of God). All of this chapter is priceless, but after describing how the moral law of God binds all persons, including those who are justified, the final paragraph (7) of Chapter 19 says this: “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to that freely, and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.” The Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 contains the same statements.
LikeLike
Randy P.
“The just shall live by faith” doesn’t mean “sanctification by faith ALONE.” Nor does that passage say: “The just shall live by faith ALONE.”
LikeLike
what part of “the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” isn’t clear?
LikeLike
Listen people, I have said it before and I will say it again: I DON’T GIVE A RATS BEHIND ABOUT THE DECREES OF MEN—PERIOD! Whoever said the following, “But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace” is A: a man. And B: Dead Wong. Sanctification is not by faith ALONE.
LikeLike
Paul,
I think you have missed the point of Anon’s post. Whether you agree with the Westminster Confession or the Baptist Confession of 1689 or not isn’t the issue. The issue is that neither of these Confessions represents New Calvinism. Much of what New Calvinism teaches is really Old Calvinism. Much of it is just clear biblical truth. You have raised “throwing the baby out with the bath water” to an art form.
I don’t know if you have realized it yet, but you are also just a man. If we should not pay any attention to “a multitude of counselors,” why should we give any credence at all to what you write?
LikeLike
GR Randy,
As Donn Arms as said to me, there is a big difference between Reformed theology and Calvinism. I am beginning to see that he is right–they are not the same.
LikeLike
Paul, if what you said were true, you would not have linked to Jay Adams and to Terry Johnson. Of course you pay any attention to the writings of men. Adams and Johnson had something important to say, with which you agreed, so you provided links to their articles. You also link to articles with which you disagree, to help make your points.
I also agree with the articles by Jay Adams and Terry Johnson, both of whom subscribe to the summaries of scripture contained in the Westminster Confession of Faith. I am thankful for this blog and the fact that you provided links to the articles by Adams and Johnson. I forwarded “Grace Boys” to a relative on a pulpit search committee, and it opened the eyes of some and focused the already opened eyes of others on the problem. The point of my post to which you reacted was that the problem with the grace boys is not that they define faith too broadly. The problem is that they define “faith” too narrowly. They say that Christ did everything for us. They see our faith as being limited to focusing and resting in the finished work of Christ that justified us. However, as you point out so well, when Christ sends his Spirit into us, he makes us new creations that are enabled to mortify the old nature (that no longer has dominion over us) and to perform all the good works that God intends. Because of the remaining sin nature, there is a continuing battle, but the promise of scripture (as noted in both Confessions that I referenced) is that we will “more and more” live as God commands, if we continue in his (narrow) way. This includes continued repentance to God, faith in Christ and diligent exercise of the means of grace, including the Word, sacraments and prayer. Throughout all of this life in Christ, faith is in operation. That is the point of Chapter 14 of the Confessions that I referenced. But, you are correct, the Confessions were written by men. While they were intended to be accurate summaries of scripture, like any other human writing, their usefulness and reliability are only as good as their scriptural accuracy. The same is true for the writings of Adams and Johnson. The same is true of your writings in this blog. The Confessions say that all of the life of the believer is “by faith,” which not only includes resting in Christ for our justification but includes our spirit-enabled obedience to all that Christ commands. As men and women of faith, we are not free to do what we please (grace boys) we are free from the dominion of sin to do whatsoever pleases God, including obedience to all of his moral law.
LikeLike