As Requested: New Calvinist Terms/Phraseology (From Unpublished Book, “Another Gospel”)
Glossary of Gospel Sanctification Terms
_______________________
“Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements–or by overstraining and isolating particular texts–or by exalting one truth at the expense of another– or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them”
~ JC Ryle
Apostle’s hermeneutic: A supposed pattern of interpretation used by the apostles that replicates redemptive-historical hermeneutics. However, despite numerous challenges from various writers, NCT proponents have never been able to articulate it.
Christian hedonism: Invented by John Piper in 1980. He believes people are completely driven by their desires. Therefore, change the desires and you change the person. Piper believes we can only change our desires by meditating on the gospel as seen in the Bible, with a goal of making Christ our deepest desire. Therefore, a Christian hedonist is one who seeks pleasure in God. He also believes that biblical imperatives only serve to make us dependent on Christ and cherish Him more (because they show us what Christ has done for us, rather than anything we are supposed to do) – we are powerless to keep the Law. He cites Romans 6:17 to make this point, and believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sin (pages 31, 32, essay, pages 89-98).
Deep repentance: Repenting of idols in the heart which are discovered by identifying the desires that they (the idols) produce. The idols can be discovered by asking ourselves “X-Ray questions.” Repenting of the idols (after we discover them) “empties the heart” which leads to us being filled with Christ. This is followed by automatic, joyful obedience because Christ is obeying for us (pages 30, 201).
Good repentance: Repenting of good works, or anything we try to do in “our own efforts” as opposed to yielding to Christ and allowing Him to obey for us. Paul Tripp says this will result in “new and surprising fruit.” Tim Keller teaches that repenting of good works is also necessary for an authentic conversion.
Heart theology: The study and theories of how we discover idols in our heart (essay, pages 145-148).
In-lawed in Christ: The Law is completely fulfilled in Christ because He obeyed it perfectly. Therefore, we have no need to obey it, nor does it have any role in sanctification.
Imperative command is grounded in the indicative event: All biblical imperatives illustrate the work of Christ, not anything God expects us to do. As Paul Tripp states it: All biblical commands must be seen in their “gospel context”(essay, pages 82-86).
Imputed active obedience of Christ: Christ’s perfect life imputed His obedience to us so we wouldn’t have to obey to be justified in sanctification (since there is no difference between the two according to GS proponents). This is also called monergistic substitutionary sanctification
(see new obedience ).
Intelligent Repentance: Another term for deep repentance.
New Calvinism: The expression of New Covenant Theology (NCT)
and all of its tenets; heart Theology, gospel sanctification, Christian hedonism, and the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
New Covenant Theology: Conceived in, or about 1980. The belief that the New Covenant abrogated all aspects of the Old, including, and especially, the Law. The New Covenant replaced the Law with a single “higher law of love”(page 56).
New Legalism: Synergistic sanctification. Any attempt to apply the word of God “in our own efforts.”
New obedience: The result of deep repentance – Christ obeys for us. We know that it is not us obeying in “our own efforts” because when it is Christ obeying through us, the obedience will always be experienced with a willing, joyful spirit, or Christian hedonism (pages 31,194).
Progressive sanctification: Ongoing justification, which isn’t a one time act, but is continually applied to us as needed. Some advocates of NCT acknowledge a daily “re-saving.” Paul Tripp says that Christians need a “daily rescue,” and cites Romans 7: 24 (essay, pages 124-129).
Redemptive church discipline: A redemptive process (rather than a process for resolving conflict between Christians) to eradicate sin in general. It is often used to convert individuals to monergistic sanctification. In many churches, this process has been assimilated into their counseling programs (essays; pages 159-172).
Redemptive-historical hermeneutics: Invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp in the 17th century and further developed by Geerhardus Vos. It makes NCT possible by supplying a prism that will always yield redemptive concepts from the text (essay, pages 177-183).
Reorientation of the heart: Replacing idols with right desires. This happens when we repent of idols discovered through interpreting desires, and replacing them with lofty visions of the gospel and Christ, which produces godly desire instead of idols which produce evil desires (page
146).
Rich typology: It’s so rich, that it doesn’t read like typology, but rather seems to be literal, being so rich. Example; “Israel” doesn’t really mean “Israel,” but is always a reference to Christ. God’s word really doesn’t mean “word,” or “Law,” but is also 100% synonymous with “the person of Christ who personifies the Law.”
What does that look like? If your leaders start using this phraseology, again, it’s a red flag. It’s an attempt to eradicate the implication that Christians are supposed to participate in the verb world. Instead of: “what should we do?” It’s: “what does that look like when Jesus is doing it for us?”
What did you want? The most utilized interpretive question among the X-ray questions used to find idols in the heart.
Word pictures: If your pastor starts using this phraseology, it’s a red flag. The insinuation is that the Bible writers were writing a gospel narrative / novel / story rather than a document containing specific ideas / instruction to be drawn from the text by evaluating grammatical construction and historical context.
X-ray Questions: Interpretive questions used to identify idols of the heart.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“In-lawed in Christ: The Law is completely fulfilled in Christ because He obeyed it perfectly. Therefore, we have no need to obey it, nor does it have any role in sanctification.”
Paul,
I’m a new reader and am still reading through all your content. From what I can tell, this perceived antinomianism seems to be your biggest issue with New Calvinism. Is that correct?
God bless!
Dave
LikeLike
Dave,
Not really. It is definitely a form of antinomianism, but my biggest problem with New Calvinism/Calvinists is that it is breaking up marriages, churches, and friendships. Not only that, the doctrine drives the agenda of the three largest counseling organizations of Christianity, using Gospel Contemplationism in an attempt to help people with serious problems.
LikeLike
Paul,
You’re listing effects. What is the theological issue in New Calvinism you believe causes those effects?
Again, my best guess from your posts is antinomianism.
One other question: You consistently use the term “New Calvinism.” Do you differentiate this North American resurgence from some other form of Calvinism? If so, do you hold differing views regarding other manifestations of Calvinism?
In Christ,
Dave
LikeLike
Dave,
Go here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-12S
and here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-130
Hope these answer your questions
Blessings,
paul
LikeLike
So, I guess we need to beware of A. T. Robertson who wrote “Word Pictures in the Greek N.T?” Give me a break.
If your other definitions are no more accurate than your “definition” of New Covenant Theology, your entire list can be safely disregarded. You should try to understand something before you try to write about it.
LikeLike
Looks like a man can’t win here. You quote Ryle who says a person shouldn’t use ” disproportioned and one-sided statements,” but if a person seeks to present both sides of the truth you accuse him of double-speak. What to do? What to do?
LikeLike
Randy, Truth has 2 sides?
LikeLike
Lydia,
More often than not, the truth lies in the tension between two seemingly irreconcilable realities. Is Jesus fully man or fully God? Is God fully sovereign or are we fully responsible for all our actions? Are believers fully dependent on the Spirit for our sanctification or are we fully responsible to obey Christ’s commands in the process of sanctification? Does God choose us or do we choose him? Does Christ seek us or do we seek him? That answer to all these questions is “both.” There are many other such questions that cannot be answered properly without acknowledging that both alternatives are true even though it is impossible for us to understand how they could be reconciled.
LikeLike
Paul – are you of the opinion that one who is not in Christ can keep biblical imperatives? Or do believe that those redeemed by Christ (justified, past tense, finished work) are, by that indicative, able to desire to keep the commands of the Lord and keep them, albeit imperfectly? Any obedience that is pleasing to God must be grounded in the reality of having been redeemed by God. In this sense, imperatives are grounded in indicatives. Not all who teach this connection are of the NC perspective of sanctification you rightly warn against.
LikeLike
Manifred,
No, our obedience does not have to be “redeemed” to be pleasing to God. We are born again, and our works are really our works, done in service to Christ and His kingdom. Christ “helps” (Hebrews 2:16,18, 4:15, 13:6) us because the flesh is weak. NC do not believe the new birth or our new creaturehood can produce good works, but all works must come from the power of the gospel outside of us, and must be manifested via a “Christ formation” in and through us. We are still functionally dead in regard to any ability to please God. The primary conduit for a new creature in Christ to please God is Scripture, which tells us how to do so. If we are unable to obey because of the aforementioned, that separates us from the law, which is always the endgame of antinomianism. NC is a reductionist theology that does just that–the Scriptures are for the purpose of Gospel Contemplationism that redeems works that flow through us via the power of the gospel.
LikeLike
Paul – thanks for your kind answer. I guess my question was poorly stated. I did not mean to ask if our works needed to be redeemed. I meant to ask if you believed that one must be redeemed before his works can be pleasing to God. This is my perception (in the context it is taught in my church) that imperatives follow indicatives. One who has not been redeemed cannot do pleasing works; the indicative is not true for him, so he can only fail at the imperative.
LikeLike
Manfred,
Oh my, yet another twist these guys put on this doctrine. Um, ok, true, unbelievers can’t please God with their works, but what they have done, per the usual, is determined the paradigm from which any conclusion can be reached. They have lumped all works into two different categories only. I call it their Either/Or hermeneutic. All works are EITHER indicative>imperative, OR imperative>indicative. By the way, they believe Christians can function like unbelievers by reversing indicative>imperative because ALL works that God recognize flow from Christ’s passive (cross work) and active (perfect obedience) works, or ie., gospel. The indicative (Christ’s redemptive work) is the “power of our sanctification” otherwise known as the indicative. Hence. all of our works must flow from Gospel Contemplationism. As Christians, if we strive to obey “in our own strength” we are functioning like unbelievers who are not in the indicative by trying to put the imperative before the indicative. Doing the imperative first has no power for either the Christian or the unbeliever. Therefore, for us to put the command first is like believing that unbelievers can do works that please God. Get it?
But the problem is that the Bible often requires the imperative prior to the indicative. Another problem is that NC strongly emphasize that all of our works flow from the “finished works of Christ.” However, often in the Scriptures, both believers and unbelievers are motivated to do things because of what God is going to do in the future. This is clearly imperative>indicative. Also, Christians are often exhorted to do imperatives to prevent indicates, ie, punishment! Christian men are told to love their wives lest their prayers be hindered, etc. The whole notion is folly.
NC, especially John Piper, do this with sanctification and justification as well. Sanctification is the fruit of justification, or “Justification in action.” The gospel/justification is the root of the tree that gives life to the tree, resulting in the fruit of sanctification. That’s the paradigm that everything must be interpreted through. So, sanctification is EITHER the root, OR the fruit. If it’s the root, thats works salvation because you are making your works the root that feeds justification. So, justification must create the fruit not you. But justification is separate from sanctification and is a finished work. Sanctification is made possible by justification, but sanctification is not a progressive manifestation of a progressive justification. Glorification is the guaranteed fruit of justification, not sanctification, the two are separate. Sanctification is not a link between justification and glorification, it happens in between, but is not what links them.
If you unite justification and sanctification per the NC model, only two things can emerge: works salvation or antinomianism because someone must do the work to maintain justification. If it is us, that’s works salvation. If Christ does it in our stead, that removes all uses of the law from us–antinomianism. The orthodox model is a sanctification that cannot effect justification in any way. We cannot do anything in sanctification to add to justification or take it away. period! Our justification is a COMPLETELY DONE DEAL. Not so with NC. because the two are united, If you unwittingly reverse the indicative>imperative, you are making the fruit the root and “reversing justification and sanctification.” This is exactly what Goldsworthy said at Southern, and Piper wrote an article stating that he agreed. Hence, sanctification becomes very tricky business for the believer according to NC doctrine.
LikeLike
If the Scriptures EVER state that the indicative, [Christ’s redemptive accomplishments in which he did everything we need to not only forgive us by his death for us but also set us free from the reigning power of sin now , by our death with him, and from sin altogether in the future] precedes the imperatives, then if it states the opposite, there exists a clear contradiction in the message of the Apostles. It cannot be that order but not that order at the same time. No one with a brain could read Romans six and deny that the imperatives of verses 11-13 are based on the indicatives of verses 1-10. This passage establishes the pattern for the entire scheme of sanctification in the New Testament.
LikeLike