Paul's Passing Thoughts

The calling card of New Calvinism is, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But the core doctrine is the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Hereafter: COGOUS.

No Christian would argue that we are saved by one who possesses a righteousness that is completely outside of us, but the contention against orthodoxy begins with the notion that this righteousness remains completely outside of us in sanctification. When contenders begin to move in on this aspect, New Calvinists quickly move the conversation back to “justification” where everyone agrees that before we were saved, we had no righteousness.

New Calvinists also employ a brainwashing technique by continually talking about justification and sanctification as if they are the same thing via the deliberate exclusion of  transitions in subject matter. John Piper’s The Gospel in 6 Minutes video is a good example of this. Another technique they employ is citing justification verses to make sanctification points. Yet another technique is to refer to believers in the past tense condition of the unregenerate. These three communication techniques are assumptive dialogues that are the staple elements of brainwashing and often employed by cults.

Let’s start with COGOUS. This concept came from the Progressive Adventists movement. I am presently working on more information that firmly establishes this, and in addition to what I cite in the first volume of The Truth About New Calvinism.  What is the Progressive Adventists movement? Here is an excerpt that is helpful:

In the space of five years (1978-1983), the Adventist community had seen three of its key tenets, or as Peter Berger calls them, its ‘legitimating structures’,15 fiercely assaulted. The cumulative effect was nothing short of traumatic. The North American Adventist community buzzed with debate. Frenzied discussion of righteousness by faith, Daniel 8, and Ellen White quickly escalated into open theological warfare, with the churches and colleges serving as the battlefields. People chose sides. They branded each other. ‘Fordite’ got attached to anyone who acknowledged the legitimacy of any of the criticisms of the investigative judgement or Ellen White, or who affirmed the Protestant gospel. Those who stood by the traditional teachings were known as ‘Traditionalists’. Neutral ground became increasingly hard to find. Adventism suddenly became a religious community intent on self-destruction.

It should not be self-destructive to reassess ones beliefs, but if there are those who refuse to acknowledged the problems then they are working against the progression of understanding. Thus Progressive Adventism sees these areas of questionable beliefs as things that need to be addressed and corrected. Particularly the last two areas, the investigative judgment and concerns over Ellen Whites authority or position as a prophet. The reason I don’t care two much about Paxton’s position is that I think the Reformation was wrong on so many things it is hardly something we should want to carry forward (Adventist Media Response and Conversation Sunday, November 20, 2011 The origins of Progressive Adventism Online sourse: http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2011/11/origins-of-progressive-adventism.html).

This is a good overall assessment with some exceptions. This from Wikipedia:

The movement emerged with Ford and Brinsmead as its main spokesmen. Desmond Ford apostatized from the church’s viewpoint in the 1970s, with issues with church doctrine similar to A. F. Ballenger.

In 1970, Robert Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy worked together on a project dubbed The Australian Forum which addressed the raging controversy at that time. Their stated goal was to form a systematic theology that would reform the SDA. My copy of “The Shaking of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton is on the way as I am delving deeper into the exact history that took place at that time. But the following is apparent: the Forum concluded that they had rediscovered the real crux of the protestant Reformation; specifically, the idea that Rome infused the righteousness of God that justified into the believer, and SDA was guilty of the same thing. Just hang on to that element alone for now.

In fact, the Forum, in essence, was correct. Both Rome and SDA believe that sanctification is the bridge between justification and glorification. Hence, believers are enabled by God to carry justification forward to the conclusion of our salvation: glorification. Rome primarily believes this is accomplished by ritual, while SDA believes that we are enabled by God to become righteous enough to “stand in the judgment.” In both cases, it’s salvation plus our efforts to complete salvation. All of our past sins are forgiven when we believe, but now we have to do certain things until glorification to maintain our just standing, albeit while being enabled or helped by God. A good example of this is the Free Will Baptists. When we are saved, we are forgiven of all of our past sins, but we must assure our forgiven status until glorification by asking forgiveness for all known sin. Ie., Christ plus our prayers for salvation. God takes care of the past, but now we have to pray our way into heaven. They use 1John 1:9 to argue for this position. Also, this is the crux of the matter in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. They were denying justification by faith alone by gravitating towards a doctrine of Christ plus something else for salvation. Theologians call this a “fusion of justification and sanctification” or “the collapsing of justification into sanctification.” In other words, sanctification finishes justification.

This is not orthodox, which teaches that sanctification is totally different from justification. Nothing we do in sanctification can add to justification, or take away from it. Our behavior in sanctification can cause us to doubt our justification has really happened, but it cannot affect the true reality of it either way. Unless the two are connected.  And this is what the Forum did. They were guilty of the same thing that Rome and SDA are guilty of, except their solution to the results of the faulty premise was different, and claimed it to be Reformed theology and the crux of the Reformation. Yes, the Forum started with the same faulty premise that sanctification finishes justification, but not by the inclusion of our works. Based on this same faulty premise of sanctification finishing justification, they concluded that like justification, sanctification had to be by faith alone. We could participate, but only to the degree that we participated in our justification: faith and repentance.

And, hence, neither could God’s righteousness be within us, for this would be the same thing as being enabled to finish justification by sanctification. Let me repeat that:  And, hence, neither could God’s righteousness be within us, for this would be the same thing as being enabled to finish justification by sanctification. Therefore, the alien righteousness of Christ must remain completely outside of us. Right?  How can they deny this? If the same gospel of justification is an alien righteousness completely outside of us, and the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us, and hence, we need to preach this same gospel to ourselves every day, neither can there be any righteousness within us for this would enable us to finish justification. Again, therefore, this righteousness, or any other righteousness that is really righteous, must remain completely outside of us. This explains, without equivocation, the prevailing total depravity of the saints mentality among New Calvinists.

This doctrine was utterly unique with the Australian Forum. In my interview with Robert Brinsmead, he claimed such, and my research concurs:

Author: What do you think the unique theological findings of the Forum were in light of history? Robert Brinsmead: “Definitely the centrality and all sufficiency of the objective gospel understood as an historical rather than an experiential event, something wholly objective rather than subjective – an outside of me event and the efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness.”

Another way this progressive SDA theology is communicated by present-day New Calvinists is “the reversal of justification and sanctification by infusing grace into the believer.” Ie., an infusing of righteousness into the believer which can only make the believer a participant in justification. The intentional use of “grace” in place of “righteousness” is yet a fourth communication technique by New Calvinists that shades what they are saying by the use of different words that mean the same thing in context, but aren’t as direct as other words that would raise red flags. Most orthodox believers hold to the belief that we are in fact declared righteous and made righteous. This is not a problem in sanctification because our righteousness cannot contribute to justification anyway, the two are separate.

This doctrine is most treacherous to the Christian walk because it separates us from the law. Any attempt on our part to apply the law of God to our lives would be “reversing sanctification and justification by infusing grace into the believer.” Any attempt to directly obey the law, or to “leap from the imperative directly into obedience” is to also believe that we have a righteousness within us that would enable us to do so. Instead, we must “offer the perfect obedience /righteousness of Christ instead, and by faith alone.”

But yet, Christ said  that putting what He has said into practice results in our lives being built on a rock. Much is at stake here. New Calvinism is another gospel all together. To be truly saved according to this doctrine is to recognize that you have not been granted a practical righteousness that you can put into practice. You must recognize that you cannot uphold the law, and any attempt to do so is to “make sanctification the grounds of your justification.”

paul