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 
“supposed rhetorical question” – really? i’ve asked twice and that’s the only response you have? come on, be intellectually honest, don’t play that game.
LikeLike
Randy,
I’m not trying to be critical, just showing my ignorance here. I thought Covenant Theologians were Calvinists. As a New Covenant Theologian are you against Calvinists? In believing in New Covenant Theology, does this mean you go to a Baptist church? I’m not sure what you mean by a “true Baptist” and the relationship to New Covenant Theology. I’m wondering if New Covenant Theologians are kin to the Dispensationalist Anti-Lordship Salvation (Antinomian) Southern Baptists? Sorry, I’m an Anglican, all I know about Baptists is that they are Christians unified around immersion. I’m thinking Baptists can cover a Very broad theological spectrum. I’m reading a Baptist, R. E. O. White lately, he sounds very different from Paul Dohse, a Southern Baptist. It all sounds interesting from your comment, I just don’t have a clue. Can somebody briefly fill me in?
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Lydia,
In your question above, you called the Puritans into question for the way they administered discipline etc. I want you to understand that I don’t agree either with their actions or the reasons for those actions. They were in reality the Theonomists of their day. I believe you are the one who mentioned “The Reformers and Their Step-children” before. In it the author very clearly identifies the error of both the Reformers and the Puritans who followed them. The did what they did because of their insistence on the unity of the covenants [or of one over-arching covenant of grace]. If you believe the Mosaic covenant is simply another administration of the “covenant of grace,” the only logical conclusion you can come to is that the breaking of [or imagined breaking of] those laws, should be met with the punishments prescribed for breaking those laws, e.g., burning witches or drowning Baptist.
Still, simply because I would disagree with their practices and the theological reasons for those practices, I don’t intend to throw away the rich instruction they provide us.
You don’t need to answer me. I am sure you will find something to find fault with in what I have said, but I am just expressing my opinion.
LikeLike
Paul,
You wrote, “Galatians IS NOT about synergistic sanctification. That’s a lie from the pit of hell.” Could you define that you mean my “synergistic sanctification?” People have used that term in so many ways that I am not sure what you mean by it. I would have to believe that it is the correct view since Paul exhorts believers to obey and work out our salvation with fear and trembling. That is one part of the equation. Then, he wrote, “for, it is God who works in you to will and do for his good pleasure.” That is the other part of the equation. If it is monergistic, either God does it all or we do it all. I don’t think we can support either of those ideas from Scripture.
LikeLike
so you infer that by my asking the question about Gal 3:11 that i am, ipso facto, a new calvinist. scroll back – i’ve said my question is independent of “synergistic sanctification” – i’m claiming nothing of new calvinism. your response is argumentum ad hominem.
LikeLike
And I asked you to clarify the point of your question–still waiting.
LikeLike
so you have no answer because the question is too open ended, or is it that you have no answer because the question doesn’t seem pertinent to your argument? i claim nothing of synergistic sanctification, and i think you’ll agree that justification is independent of any works of man. you’ve said yourself that justification is once and done, right? how can justification be anything but by faith alone, faith that is granted because of God’s grace?
LikeLike
Bill,
Let me try to take your questions one at a time. If I don’t get to all of them, please forgive me.
1. “I thought Covenant Theologians were Calvinists. As a New Covenant Theologian are you against Calvinists? ”
Covenant Theologians for the most part are Calvinists. All Calvinists are not Covenant Theologians. I am not against Calvinists; I am a Calvinist [Assuming that term is properly defined].
“I’m wondering if New Covenant Theologians are kin to the Dispensationalist Anti-Lordship Salvation (Antinomian) Southern Baptists?”
I believe some things Dispensationalists believe are true. Anti-lordship salvation, carnal Christian doctrine etc. would not be among the things I would believe they are correct about. I am not a Southern Baptist. In fact, I am not a Baptist denominationally. I am only a Baptist in that I believe the truths Baptist have believed historically.
“Sorry, I’m an Anglican, all I know about Baptists is that they are Christians unified around immersion.”
I believe in baptism by immersion. More important, I believe in the baptism of believers only. If you are interested, there is an article on my blog re: the sign of the New Covenant that might help clarify what we believe. Frankly, it we were united around nothing but baptism by immersion, I probably wouldn’t bother to be a Baptist.
“I’m thinking Baptists can cover a Very broad theological spectrum.”
You are right. The name “Baptist” has come to mean very little. The cults draw most of their converts from Baptist churches, because most Baptist are so ill-taught and biblically ignorant. Heinz used to have the slogan, “57 varieties.” Probably the same can be said about Baptists.
Hope this helps to clarify for you.
Randy
LikeLike
Anon.
I agree with you that we cannot be sanctified apart from faith. If we are to please our Father, we must walk by faith since without faith it is impossible to please him (See Heb 11:6). Sanctification, like justification, is by faith. Unlike in justification in which we are dealing with God as judge whom we cannot please by our works, in sanctification we may please God as our Father through good works that are performed in obedience to his revealed will.
The verse you are using to support your position, as you know, is cited from Habakkuk 2 where it indeed refers to the manner in which God’s people are to live in reliance on God’s promises even when God’s actions seem to be running contrary to his revealed will and character. If I recall correctly, the NT writers cite this verse three times. Paul cites it twice, once in Romans and once in Galatians as evidence that we are justified not by works, but through faith. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews also cites it in exhorting professed believers to continue in the faith. I think your point would be better made by using that citation from Heb. 10:38-39, since without controversy that verse is dealing with the need for believers to continue believing in the process of sanctification.
Faith in Christ is not a one time act that we perform and get behind us. Faith is that which characterizes the life of every child of God. Believers go on believing for the rest of our lives
LikeLike
Lydia,
thanks for the alert. I have not heard of Edwards dark side.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
btw paul, my argumentum ad hominem was in response to AB’s comment, however the “supposed” in your response betrays a certain presupposition on your part, doesn’t it?
LikeLike