“Snap”: The Sound of the Trap Laid in the First “Objective Gospel” Post
“Conclusion: Piper, Mohler, Devers, DeYoung, et al, are really just a bunch of Progressive Adventists. That’s just fact.”
“Therefore, the Forum came up with a systematic theology that could present sanctification as finishing justification with our participation limited to faith only like justification, lest we be a participant in being justified. And that is the doctrine inherited by New Calvinists.”
I wondered which one of my New Calvinist buddies would fall for the trap laid in yesterday’s “Objective Gospel” post. The prize goes to Westminster graduate Randy Seiver, our most notable member of the PPT peanut gallery:
From everything I have read, that is a total perversion of what NC teach. In fact, it appears to be the precise opposite of what they believe and teach. When are you going to begin to produce citations that demonstrate that your claims are true? I will stand firmly with you if you can convince me one of these guys is teaching that our obedience in sanctification has anything to do with justification.
First, let’s start by reviewing my thesis of yesterday’s post. In my continual endeavor to make New Calvinism easy to understand, I presented the following formula: the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) is also extended to sanctification by New Calvinists, while letting people assume they are only talking about justification. But since they also believe the two are the same, they are talking about both when they are talking about justification. They also use deceptive word choices. “Gospel,” is really “righteousness.” Simply put, they believe the righteousness of God also remains completely outside of us in sanctification after we are saved. And they engage in deliberate deception accordingly. Four of their deceptive communication techniques were discussed in the first post. The thesis: a strong contention can be leveled against New Calvinism by forcing them to explain how the righteousness obtained in justification REMAINS completely outside of us after salvation. You then have to disallow them to move the conversation back to an assumed orthodox view of justification as a diversion. All of this harkens back nicely to yesterday’s repost from the Pedestrian Christian blog. I truly believe that New Calvinists are a classic example of what was exegeted there.
Secondly, I also want to back up and establish the following: the New Calvinist contention that COGOUS was the crux of the original Reformation, and that it has recently been rediscovered, came directly from the Australian Forum which was at the center of the Progressive Adventists movement. Also, COGOUS was the brainchild of the Forum as well. Conclusion: Piper, Mohler, Devers, DeYoung, et al, are really just a bunch of Progressive Adventists. That’s just fact.
On that point, I am woefully indebted to a couple of readers for introducing me to the writings of John H. Armstrong. He traces his own lost Reformation/COGOUS mentality, as well as others, directly back to the Forum and even cites quotations from their theological journal. (The Truth About New Calvinism; pages 63, 64, 65, 154, 155). In one his articles, he states the following:
The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.
Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.
In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.
The following is a graphic from that same article that Armstrong cites:
Get the picture? Underlying this doctrine is the idea that sanctification completes justification. If that’s true, we would agree with the forum’s contention: you can’t complete justification by infusing grace/righteousness into the believer because it makes the continued process of justification imperfect. “It is making sanctification the grounds of your justification” to quote New Calvinist phraseology. The reverse is true from the perspective of their doctrine; sanctification flows from justification and both must be a total work of God. Remember, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Right? “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” right? To infuse righteousness/grace into the believer in any way is to make him/her a participant in completing justification. The Forum believed that this was the crux of the Reformation. Therefore, the Forum came up with a systematic theology that could present sanctification as finishing justification with our participation limited to faith only like justification, lest we be a participant in being justified. And that is the doctrine inherited by New Calvinists.
Now, let me demonstrate that this drives the theology of the well-known New Calvinist John Piper. When one of the core four of the Australian Forum, Graeme Goldsworthy, did a series of lectures at Southern Seminary, Piper wrote an article about the lectures on his Desiring God blog. In that article, he concurs with Goldsworthy that COGOUS was the crux of the Reformation and any other doctrine puts one’s soul in peril. The following citations are from chapter 4 of TTANC:
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this ‘upside down’ gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel.
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel [emphasis Piper’s—not this author].
This view of “Reformation” doctrine also forced the Forum to come up with an explanation for the new birth not being part of the gospel. The whole, “You must be born again” idea obviously poses huge problems for the rejection of an “infused grace” in the believer. That’s why the Forum rejected the new birth as part of the gospel. In fact, another member of the Forum’s core four, Geoffrey Paxton, wrote a controversial article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” In another article written by Goldsworthy in the Forum’s journal, he footnotes Paxton’s article to show agreement. And guess what? Well known New Calvinists concur. Consider the following quotations including that of well known New Calvinist Michael Horton from page 106 of TTANC:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
Now, in conclusion, I will answer Seiver’s challenge with these quotes from contemporary New Calvinists that are cited on page 94 of TTANC:
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.”
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel
~John Piper
Thus, it will inevitably lead not to self-examination that leads us to despair of ourselves and seek Christ alone outside of us, but to a labyrinth of self-absorption.
~ Michael Horton
So what does this objective Gospel look like? Most importantly, it is outside of us.
~ Tullian Tchividjian
The blessings of the gospel come to us from outside of us and down to us.
~ John Fonville
If we happen to say No to one self-destructive behavior, our self-absorption will merely express itself in another, perhaps less obvious, form of self-destruction. Jesus sympathizes with our weaknesses. He was tempted in all ways as we are, yet without sin. We need help from outside ourselves—and he helps.
~ David Powlison
Come now Randy, and make good your promise to stand with me if I provide proof. Susan and I live in a church with plenty of rooms. You could fly out here with your lovely wife and consummate your beautiful repentance from the evils of New Calvinism and Seventh-Day Adventism. We will have song and dance, and serve you breakfast in bed every morning. Not only that, we have everything needed here to put together a promotional program to make you the converted liaison to the New Calvinists. It could be huge!
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul,
I am committed to life in Costa Rica. If anyone is going to fly, you are. We have tons of room and you could enjoy beautiful weather instead of suffering through yet another dismal winter in the frozen Tundra. I read you quotes.
They lack any connection to sanctification. They are all describing justification before God which is based on an alien righteousness that is altogether outside of us. This is the point of controversy between RCs, SDAs and Arminians relative to justification, not sanctification. Is justifying righteousness altogether outside of us, or is it based on a righteousness inside of us?. It has nothing to do with sanctification. The same work of Christ accomplishes justification and sanctification but sanctification doesn’t complete justification.
I am asking you to cite NC who state:
1. Justification is progressive.
2. Sanctification completes or becomes the basis of justification. Goldsworthy’s statement makes it clear he doesn’t believe that.
3. Jesus obeys for us in sanctification so that sanctification involves no obedience on our part.
If you can produce some evidence that NC as a movement embraces these ideas, I would look forward to being served breakfast in bed.
Paul, regeneration is not the gospel. We are nowhere told that if we will believe we will be born again. Jesus did not tell Nicodemus something he had to do but something that needed to be done to him. Sinners are passive in regeneration. It is not the gospel but what makes the gospel work.
Justification is based on an alien righteous that is put to believer’s accounts. It is a righteousness that is totally outside of us.
Sanctification is a holiness that God produces in us by his Spirit.
Though they are accomplished for the same people, they are decidedly different works of God. One is a judicial declaration, the other is a remedial and ongoing work of God. It is clear to me the citations you provided are talking about the former, not the latter.
LikeLike
Randy,
Your answer speaks for itself to any thinking person. Like all New Calvinists, you try to bring the conversation back to a supposed orthodox view of justification in order to confuse the issue. Your answer is full of blatant contradictions in thought. Piper clearly says that to even recognize a work of Christ inside us is to infuse grace into the believer and reverse justification and sanctification. Seriously Randy, what does Piper mean when he says: “When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.” Sure, this can be dodged by saying, “He’s talking about the ‘ground of justification, not sanctification,'” which has worked very well for New Calvinists, but can NC deny that the “righteousness of Christ” is the ground of our justification? NO! because they continually harp on that all the time. So, if Christians posses a righteousness, what kind is it and where did it come from? So at the very least, Piper is saying that any righteousness that moves from outside of us to within in us, even a work that is performed by Christ, is a false gospel.
LikeLike
Paul,
The issue is that justification is what they are talking about. I am not trying to confuse the issue. I have no reason to do that. It is just that any thinking person can see that when Piper says, ““WHEN THE GROUND OF JUSTIFICATION [note that when he uses the words “the ground of justification” this should give a clue as to what he is talking about] moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled.” he is talking about justification, not sanctification. Yes, any righteousness that moves from outside of us to inside of us AS THE BASIS OF OUR RIGHT STANDING BEFORE GOD is a false gospel. This is the difference between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. It has nothing to do with sanctification. This is the question, Does God declare us righteous because he has infused grace to us, enabling us to obey and achieve a righteousness that will fulfill his righteous demands or are we declared righteous because God has put a righteousness to our account that is not ours at all, a righteousness that is completely outside of us? Those are the choices. Believing one will send you to hell. Through believing the other, God will declare you righteous in his sight. This isn’t New Calvinism. It is the gospel. Surely, even you can understand this…or maybe not.
LikeLike
Again, let me ask: “Does justification have to be maintained?”
LikeLike
Still waiting for the citations re: the three issues above.
LikeLike
Randy,
I will answer you question with a question: So, you are saying that justification has to be maintained, right? “My righteousness, even though it is a righteousness that is enabled by Christ’s redemptive work, cannot contribute, even slightly, to my right standing before God.” And, “My righteousness.” Secondly, you are saying that we have a righteousness that is our OWN after salvation, right?
LikeLike
Yes, even the work of Christ within us if it becomes, in our thinking, the basis of our justification before God becomes a false gospel. That does not deny that Christ’s work is applied by the Spirit as he pursues his work of sanctification within us. It is simply that that work of sanctification never becomes the basis of our justification.
You would do well to read some of the theology that has been written for the last five centuries. Though this teaching was eclipsed by Arminianism during the 20th Century, it has been the standard theology of Orthodox Christianity through the centuries, My righteousness, even though it is a righteousness that is enabled by Christ’s redemptive work, cannot contribute, even slightly, to my right standing before God.
LikeLike
Where does Piper say the following, ” to even recognize a work of Christ inside us is to infuse grace into the believer and reverse justification and sanctification?”
LikeLike
“This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel.”
There is NO relationship between sanctification and justification. Justification is a completed work. Piper reveals himself in the statement in how he fuses the two together. Again, you are using the deceptive tactic of making everything about justification and then using it as cover.
LikeLike
We stand justified for all eternity because Jesus’ sacrifice is eternally efficacious. I must do nothing to maintain it,
Piper does not fuse the two [justification and sanctification] in that statement. He is talking about what the “upside down gospel” he is describing has done. That false gospel makes sanctification the ground of justification. Piper is saying that is a false gospel; he is not advocating that message.
Yes, I am saying we have a righteousness that is ours after justification [salvation is a term that is far broader than merely justification. It involves all God’s salvific activity from eternity to eternity], but our personal righteousness (I would say holiness, since righteousness is more of a judicial term) never forms any part of the basis of our judicial standing before God. We are declared righteous before God solely on the basis of Christ work.
Please provide quotes for the three claims I asked about. Also, tell me where Piper says, “to even recognize a work of Christ inside us is to infuse grace into the believer and reverse justification and sanctification?”
There is no question grace is infused or imparted to the believer in sanctification God clearly works in us. The issue is whether or not that internal work of imparting grace ever becomes the basis of our right standing before God. Piper is arguing and I would argue that it does not.
LikeLike
Randy,
I didn’t ask you if Jesus’ sacrifice was eternally efficacious, I asked if justification has to be maintained for the believer.
LikeLike
And I’m sorry I misquote people. Like the time I quoted an author as stating that a cat walked across a street, when the author really wrote, “The cat used his paws to walk across the street.”
LikeLike
The eternal efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice does maintain our right standing before God. That is the answer.
Your mindless “cat crossing the street” comment does not apply. The two statements, though slightly different, are not contradictory. You are claiming Piper is teaching a doctrine that is diametrically opposed to what he is teaching. Don’t try to tell us what he is saying. Just tell us what he said and let us interpret it for ourselves. Direct quotes with specific references so I can see them for myself in context is all I am asking for.
LikeLike
Bingo Randy. Like a good Seventh-Day Adventist, you believe that justification has to be maintained. Unless, of course, I am taking “….does [a helping verb] maintain [an ongoing work, and another verb] our right standing before God [indicating a future judgement like the “the investigative judgement” in Adventism]. But of course, I’m probably misquoting you. So Randy, what was Christ talking about when He said, “It is finished.”
LikeLike
Now the question becomes the following Randy: “If justification has to be maintained, who maintains it, and can we be involved?” Put that together with the idea that sanctification is the maintaining of justification, and it’s pretty much game over. Obviously, if their is NOT a perceived connection between sanctification and justification, it’s oxymoronic to speak in terms of “upside down” gospels and a “reversal of the RELATIONSHIP” between the two (just. and sanc.).
LikeLike
Paul,
One other thought. I understand why you can’t produce any quotes to support your claims. It is because no one is saying what you are claiming. You comments are self contradictory and foolish. Did you smoke a lot of pot when you were younger?
LikeLike
ya know Randy, I have written the book and I am totally at peace with letting the folks out there decide for themselves.
LikeLike
You cited J Adams as talking about the “fusion” of justification and sanctification as follows: “The crux of the issue has to do with the unbiblical fusion of sanctification with justification. The latter is set forth not as “keeping” God’s commandments, but as bringing about change by concentrating on the cross. As one immerses himself in the cross of Christ, sanctifying growth occurs. The biblical truth is that we are to pursue fruit, which becomes a reality and the Spirit helps us grow in grace” (Institute for Nouthetic Studies blog: Archives; Gospel Sanctification, May 9, 2011 by Jay Adams).
Do you not understand that one can concentrate on the Christ and all he accomplished for his people, as the NT Scriptures invite us to do, and keep God’s commandments at the same time? These activities are not mutually exclusive. Why do you think there is a problem with God’s people being motivated to love and serve him by meditating on his redeeming love? Paul confessed that he was constrained and impelled by Christ’s love to be obedient. Why shouldn’t we be constrained by the same love?
If some have taken that biblical concept to an extreme, fight the extreme, but don’t deny the biblical concept.
LikeLike
Randy,
That’s the ole, “We are just arguing past each other; this is just a matter of emphasis.” Ortlund tried that one on Jason Hood, it doesn’t fly. I am reading “The Shaking of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton and it confirms my thesis in TTANC vol. 1 to the max. New Calvinism is plainly a doctrine that came out of progressive Adventism. I will soon be writing new articles on what Paxton states in the book. The gigs up on this Randy.
LikeLike