The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 17; New Calvinism’s Total Disregard for the Plain Sense of Scripture
This is a post in video form so I can make sure “An Introduction to New Calvinism” will work.
This is a post in video form so I can make sure “An Introduction to New Calvinism” will work.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Admittedly, I am not a bible scholar but it seems you either sincerely don’t understand the direction these authors you cite (specifically in ~ minutes 5-7) are going or you are being intentionally misleading.
These authors are arguing that a pre-requisite to authentic Christian change is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and that obedience stems then from the changes that relationship brings.
Based on familiarity with (some of) these authors works, it does not seem that the encourage grace at the expense of obedience but rather grace as a path to obedience. T
They are simply emphasizing that authentic Christianity stems from a relationship with Jesus Christ. Would this not be correct based on John 14:6? There is not path to the father except through Jesus. He is that path and the way a life that pleases God.
Consider also Matthew 7: 21-23. Those Jesus refers to in saying He “never knew” them will be those who never came to truly “know Him” even while they may have been obedient to his law. Absent that relationship the product of a faith based on rules is empty.
Matthew 7: 13-14 refers to the wide path and narrow path – based on the teaching of Jesus it seems that the narrow path refers to not only obedience to the law but also cultivation of life changing relationship with Jesus himself.
Your argument in this section only stands up if in fact these authors are making a case for grace alone. That is, gaining salvation through grace despite disobedience. But in fact I think the case they make (in the full context of their works) is that once one fully experiences grace they will naturally choose to be obedient.
I do agree with your criticism of the Newhart analogy by Powlison. In addition to your example, another example which contradicts this sentiment is John 8:11 which Jesus exhorts one to “Go, and sin no more.” I translate that roughly as ‘stop it’!
LikeLike
“Your argument in this section only stands up if in fact these authors are making a case for grace alone. That is, gaining salvation through grace despite disobedience. But in fact I think the case they make (in the full context of their works) is that once one fully experiences grace they will naturally choose to be obedient”
Anonymous,
http://web.me.com/pandrewsandlin/New_CCL_2/Andrews_Blog/Entries/2011/11/29_The_Rhetoric_of_Unconditional_Grace.html
here is a perfect example, from a long time Calvinist no less!, of how the NC guys take grace and make it something it is not when it comes to obedience. This author and pastor has caught Tullian doing the same thing and articulates the problem with it. I love this quote from him:
“The Bible isn’t at war with righteousness, only with self-righteousness”
REad the link. It is a short blog post containing concern for what Tullian is teaching about Grace and obedience.
LikeLike
Lydia,
thanks for that interesting blog. Andrew’s got the right idea!
It’s really amazing to me how Paul can read all those Scriptures in the video above and Anonymous can’t see the obvious contradictions by the New Calvinists. Actually, I think it would be a little harder than extremely difficult to find a New Calvinist teaching obedience to those verses Paul quotes. As we know, they don’t teach it because they don’t see the value.
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Lydia,
You are kidding, right? Certainly neither you nor your buddy Andrew can seriously believe Tullian is talking about obedience to the gospel. Of course, the gospel demands obedience, but it only takes one eye and half sense to understand that this is not what he was talking about. In my view, only an extreme bias against the important biblical truth he is articulating would cause anyone to even make such a banal statement. Any real believer in the grace of God understands that God does not receive us because of our obedience in faith and repentance, but because of the perfect obedience of Christ. It is through the obedience of faith, not because of that faith that we are received.
LikeLike
Randy,
Cite one verse that teaches that Christ’s obedience while He was on Earth was imputed to us for obedience in sanctification, which is exactly what New Calvinism teaches. Since justification must be maintained through sanctification until glorification (the believer must remain in a righteous standing before God at all times), perfect obedience to the law must be presented to God throughout. Therefore, since such an endeavor would exclude us, perfect obedience in sanctification would have to be part of the atonement and fulfilled by Christ. Which is what they say Christ was talking about in Matthew 5 when He said He came to fulfill the law. That’s what these guys teach, it’s called double imputation. What say you?
LikeLike
Lydia,
By the way,
I like the quote too.
LikeLike
Paul,
I have no way of producing verses to support a position I don’t believe. My issue, at this point, is that I have not seen a citation that indicated that anyone believes that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us for sanctification. Show me where someone has said that and I will respond to it. I certainly don’t believe that. Nothing can increase our right standing before God. I am not asking for 25 quotes. I just want to see one. So far, you have shown me nothing.
LikeLike
Anything for you my friend, here is one from the Golden Boy of New Covenant Theology, who my daughter calls, Chad “the wolf” Bresson:
Chad Richard Bresson
May 3, 2010 at 11:57 pm
I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.
LikeLike
Paul,
I assume since you know Chad, you have asked him what he means by this statement. I don’t know him and don’t know exactly what he means. If I were to make such a statement, though I suspect I would phrase it somewhat differently, I would mean that we are to obey because he has perfectly obeyed on our behalf and thus hammed out for us a perfect righteousness in terms of the Law under which he was born. That righteousness has been put to our account for justification so that nothing we have done, are doing or shall ever do will be found to be lacking in terms of the perfect requirements of the Law. Additionally, he has died under the penalty of our law breaking so that the Law can never exact its death penalty on us again. I don’t obey God because if I don’t he is going to get even with me. He already got even with me in Christ, my substitute. I don’t obey him because I will be lost if I don’t. I obey him because since he obeyed on my behalf and died in my place I can never be cast out. I keep the imperatives because he kept the imperatives. His imputed obedience for my justification forms the basis for my sanctification.
Now, if he were saying what you claim, this is what he would have said. “We don’t have to do the imperatives because of our union with him and because he has already done the imperatives for us and his obeying of those imperatives is put to our account so that we don’t have to do anything.” Why would he talking about “do[ing] the imperatives” if Christ’s righteousness is put to our account [imputed] for our sanctification? Since his obedience is imputed to us for justification, there is no imperative we must obey. If his obedience has been imputed to us for sanctification, why would he say, “We do the imperatives?” If his obedience has been imputed to me for sanctification, I don’t have to keep the imperatives.
What he has said here does not square with what you have claimed.
LikeLike
Randy, You are reverting back to the same old Calvinist arguement: Ask the public teacher what they meant. It never ceases to amaze me that the reader who disagrees always misunderstands the person who makes their living communicating!
As to Tullian, I got exactly what Sandlin had a problem with. And with that in mind, Jesus’ first sermon was “Reent and believe”. Why would He tell people to do something they could not do?
LikeLike
Uh….REPENT ……
LikeLike
Lydia,
Why does God tell people to obey the law? Is that not something we cannot do in a state of nature. Why did Jesus tell Lazarus to come out of the tomb? That was something he was unable to do. Everything God commands us to do in the spiritual real is impossible for us apart from Christ. Jesus said, “. . . . severed from me, you can do nothing.”
It is funny, I didn’t have any trouble at all understanding what he meant. Perhaps, the problem isn’t with the teacher.
LikeLike