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 
Paul, if what you said were true, you would not have linked to Jay Adams and to Terry Johnson. Of course you pay 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
Randy from Tulsa,
As I have said before, I quote men who can say it better than I can. My citation of Adams and Johnson are NOT “decrees” that form a rule of law for many denominations.
LikeLike
Paul, sorry about posting the last comment twice. The second posting was the one intended.
LikeLike
well then, what part of Gal 3:11 isn’t clear?
LikeLike
Galatians IS NOT about synergistic sanctification. That’s a lie from the pit of hell.
LikeLike
I am tracking with you on a lot of things…However, I would like to hear your explaination of verses like…
John 20:31 – These things were written so that you might believe Jesus is the Christ and by believing have life in His name.
Ephesians 2:10 – We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus TO DO (not by) good works, which God prepared in advance so that we may walk in them.
2 Thess. 2:13-14 – God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.
Ezekiel 36:26-27 – A new heart I will give you. I will put a new spirit within you. I will take away your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my Spirit within you and I will CAUSE you to walk in my statutes.
Ephesians 5:26 – That He might sanctify and cleanse…
1 Thess. 5:23 – And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly…
Romans 12:1-2 is often cited as a passage for the view of sanctification you are speaking of…but it starts “by the mercies of God…that you present your bodies…”
Hebrews 12:2 – Looking unto Jesus, who is the author and FINISHER of our faith.
Hbrews 13:20-21 – Now the God of peace…even the Jesus our Lord make you perfect (or equip you) in every good work to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight.
Phil 2:13 – For it is God that works in you both to will and to do His good pleasure.
Obviously, there are many other verses that could easily lead someone to have a different perspective than you do. It is troubling to see you blame so many “issues” in church’s on a theology rather than sin.
Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts.
HRW
LikeLike
HRW,
Please explain the thesis that these cited verses support.
LikeLike
what does Gal 3:11 have to do with synergistic sanctification? nothing. what does 1 Cor 1:30-31 have to do with synergistic sanctification? nothing. again, what isn’t clear about Gal 3:11? what isn’t clear about 1 Cor 1:30-31? answer my questions please, not what you think i’m asking.
LikeLike
Anon,
Why don’t you clarify the original point of your supposed rhetorical question.
LikeLike
Anonymous,
I don’t know if your post was in response to mine or not. Assuming that it was, is there a particular moral law of God that the Christian is free to disobey. If a Christian does disobey one of the moral laws of God – either the 10 Commandments or the summary of them by Christ (quoting in both instances from the Old Testament), is he or she not sinning?
I would agree with Paul’s reply that the primary issue in Galatians is not synergistic sanctification, it is justification by faith. However, as the Apostle Paul does go on to describe the life in Christ by his spirit. This is not a secondary teaching, as his point in the letter is that, just as we begin our life in Christ by his spirit, so we continue forever in his spirit. Interestingly (in terms of the moral law’s continued applicability), the example Paul uses to apply his teaching about life in the spirit is helping one who has sinned by breaking the moral law of God. Paul’s instructions are to bear his and one another’s burdens, which fulfills the law of Christ. If we wanted to press what Paul meant by the “law of Christ” one logically would go to Christ’s own words. He answered that by summarizing all the law (including the 10 commandments) in two commands. Both of what our Lord called the “two greatest commandments” were quotations from the Old Testament law (in Deuteronomy and Leviticus, respectively). So, Christ’s law is the same as the Old Testament moral law – love God and love your neighbor. The moral law as summarized by the two greatest commandments continue to apply to those justified, as well as to those who are not. The justified are enabled by Christ’s spirit to obey them, not as a condition of their justification, but because the spirit of God that is in us can do nothing less. Unfortunatley, we do quench the spirit and fail to grow more and more by his grace in obedience to his will.
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.”
Bill, I have read some Puritan works and also several historical narratives concerning Puritans. At what point should doctrine influence behavior? Because when it comes to how the Puritans lived with their own cruel magistrates and bizarre punishments for missing church, rules for living in the community, etc, one wonders if they really got it.
I would also recommend Marsden’s bio of Jonathan Edwards to round out the idolatry of Edwards from so many quarters these days.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Somewhere on this blog I have a repost from Adams on how the Puritans were wacky on a lot of stuff–too busy to find it right now.
LikeLike
Paul,
I certainly agree with that assessment re: Reformed Theology and Calvinism. Reformed Theology, in my view, includes Covenant Theology and all its ramifications. Calvinism as a Soteriological paradigm is far narrower in its scope. In my view, a person can be a Calvinist and also a Baptist. One cannot be a true Baptist and hold to Reformed Theology. This is why I have written so extensively about New Covenant Theology. I believe to be a true Baptist, in the theological sense, not in the denominational sense, one must believe in New Covenant Theology at least to some extent.
GWR
LikeLike
I don’t have a dog in the fight…those verses, to me, appear to support the opposite of what you are talking about. I think there are a lot of verses for both sides. I keep reading here where people cite the WCF or Jay Adams or Puritans, etc. I am interested in the Scriptural discussion.
Thanks for your insights.
LikeLike
HRW,
Actually, I am trying to get a video done that is an introduction to the subject of New Calvinism that addresses these issues. It is pretty apparent to me already that I will never be a film maker, but oh well, somebody has to do it.
LikeLike
Anon’s comment:
(“well then, what part of Gal 3:11 isn’t clear?”) is typical of New Calvinists. Most everything is out of context. They are often too lazy to turn the pages of the Bible. I believe their motive is to blot-out “the necessity of good works” held by the true Reformation, even held by the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Gal 3:11 “Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”
Sure, the central issue of Galatians is about the doctrine of justification by faith. However, lest anyone think the Eternal Inheritance is all about what Christ has done, or that this leads to ignoring moral laws, Paul gives the application of theology in chapters 5 & 6.
Note: Gal 6:21 says “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
Paul also includes serious warnings like this in other letters. There are many references in the New Testament to: “don’t letter anyone deceive you” in the context of behavorial conduct. “No murderer has eternal life in him (1Jn 3:15).”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike