Paul's Passing Thoughts

The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 20; For Southwood’s Door

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on December 17, 2011

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Paula Coyle said, on December 18, 2011 at 1:01 PM

    Just a few straw men there…

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on December 18, 2011 at 1:16 PM

      Thanks for the New Calvinist sound bites Paula. Which is the staple food of New Calvinism.

      Like

      • paulspassingthoughts said, on December 18, 2011 at 1:17 PM

        Rather than truth.

        Like

  2. Paula Coyle said, on December 18, 2011 at 1:02 PM

    And a whole lot of moralism.

    Like

  3. gracewriterrandy said, on December 18, 2011 at 2:51 PM

    Paula vs. Paul. I like it. She is right about the straw men you know.

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on December 18, 2011 at 3:18 PM

      Randy,
      You agree with Paula: shocking.

      Like

  4. Alex Guggenheim said, on December 18, 2011 at 3:49 PM

    “Straw men, straw men!”, they cried.

    “Where?”, asked the gentleman.

    Silence followed since they could only cry about straw men but point none out. It seems their cries were the real straw men.

    Like

  5. gracewriterrandy said, on December 18, 2011 at 7:41 PM

    Justification and sanctification differ? Now there is a straw man if I have ever seen one. Just read Ernie Reisinger’ s statement from your book. “distinct from but always joined to justification.” That means they differ. That might be what people mean by “straw man.”

    Like

  6. gracewriterrandy said, on December 18, 2011 at 8:00 PM

    Who says confessions are Scripture? It think that is clearly another straw man. The document is riddled with them.

    Like

  7. Tim Scott said, on December 18, 2011 at 11:07 PM

    So I am trying to figure out # 23-24 & 27 (a couple of others too). Could you explain in further detail? Number 27 particularly seems to contradict James 2:10-11

    Like

    • paulspassingthoughts said, on December 19, 2011 at 8:48 AM

      Scott,
      James is talking about those who willfully disobey certain parts of the law but perceive themselves as those who uphold God’s law. In this case, showing socioeconomic partiality. They didn’t take the law seriously in regard to that sin. Murder isn’t optional, but favoritism is a “little” sin that is no big deal. Such sin in their minds was a footnote in God’s law. The Pharisees had a particular problem with this, seeing outward behavior as what mattered, but thoughts of the mind didn’t. Then on top of that, they redefined God’s law to make it easier to obey even in the outward arena. The Bible states specifically that they were anti-law both inwardly and outwardly.

      Christians are born again. If we weren’t in this flesh, we could keep the law perfectly. And guess what, for salvation purposes, it doesn’t matter because we are not under the law for justification, we are under the law for kingdom living. This is where New Calvinists miss the boat via SDA theology. When you fuse justification and sanctification, the law remains a standard for justification WITHIN sanctification. Let me repeat that: “When you fuse justification and sanctification, the law remains a standard for justification WITHIN sanctification.” Paxton convinced Brinsmead that COOPERATION/COLABORING with God to MAINTAIN JUSTIFICATION was not the ticket. So how could the law be presented to God in sanctification perfectly? That’s when they founded the think tank named “The Australian Forum.” To develop a consistent theological system that answered this question was the stated goal of the Forum, and the result was “the centrality of the objective gospel.” And shazaam! They discovered in the process that COG was the very crux of the Reformation, and had been lost to an evangelical “subjective gospel.” This also was a perfect fit for Paxton and Brinsmead’s shared disdain for Charismatic theology. Of course, the primary tenet of the doctrine has paved the way for their inclusion which would undoubtedly make both of them cringe. So, what was the formula for their dilemma? How can perfection be presented in sanctification? They developed an orthodox sounding theology that supposedly answered that question and such is the core doctrine of New Calvinism.

      Now my point: You can see why New Calvinists want to interpret James that way; “See, see, Christians can’t obey the law perfectly (which is the standard for justification, but we have already been declared righteous),and if you disobey at one point, you are guilty of disobeying the whole law.” But hello, in regard to justification, we CANNOT be declared guilty for anything! Our obedience to the law for kingdom living is a whole separate issue. This is why Piper et al are constantly talking about how we can unwittingly make “sanctification the ground for our justification.” EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED TO JUSTIFICATION. Really, Jay Adams nailed this whole problem back in 1999. He has been harping for thirteen years that the crux of this problem is “the fusion of justification and sanctification.”
      paul

      Like


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s