This was a very helpful and clear presentation explaining the New Calvinism history and “connecting the dots” with sound evidence and proofs. It is no longer possible to ignore this thesis. It is remarkable research that you have put into this. Any unbias reader and listener to the videos can see that you have established your position of proving the sources of the errors and “the men who have crept in unawares” with well-documented arguments that ought to be considered by all.
This 3-part video made an important clarification. Until now, I had misinterpreted (and believe others might have too) your meaning of the Flowchart which appeared to show that ALL Reformed Baptists were being heaped together into the New Calvinism movement and the errors and heresies of a few, largely because of the diagram’s construction and the juxtaposition of John Piper’s name in a box near to Walter Chantry. (Maybe arrows reflecting the “push back” you mention would be helpful). You made it clear however (as many among Reformed Baptists know) that Walter Chantry as well as even Earnest Reisinger had opposed the antinomian heresy of New Covenant Theology (albeit some thought it not damnable heresy, as if Christ’s perfect obedience to the moral law gave us liberty to break it, and forgetting that “sin is lawlessness”–1 Jn.). Clearly, as you point out, Richard Barcellos book, Defense of the Decalogue (also in the chart), was written to publicly and formally refute the evident error of many “Calvinistic” Southern Baptists including among the Founders Movement, as well as other Sovereign Grace Baptists (who reject historic Baptist Confessions, yet claim to follow John Gill), who “abolish the law” (contrary to Jesus own words) and redefine sanctification. Have you provided a copy of your book for both Chantry and Barcellos to consider for their review? That could prove very beneficial and urge serious consideration about New Calvinism and bring the matter to a head.
Reformed Baptists, who are somewhat associated with (by their own endorsements and frequent quoting of John Piper) and association with Founders Ministries (including church lists) must now must respond to clear themselves, church by church (possibly in their online Beliefs), as to their view of justification, sanctification, New Covenant Theology, and the New Calvinism movement, at least in fairness to their members or those seeking a sound church. Otherwise wandering sheep are prey to false shepherds who seek to corral them in. (And this really is about souls, isn’t it?)
Frankly, what is presented ought to be reviewed by all Reformed Seminaries, especially Reformed Baptist and Southern Seminary professors for a formal response, as well as the Association of Reformed Baptists or other non-affiliated Reformed Baptist congregations. There is now too much a stake to remain silent or neutral with the facts laid out. Any professors or classes in recent Church History ought to consider what is presented here as well as classes on Doctrine (instead of always speaking as if the dangers are only from the world). The influence of the New Calvinist movement and its very peculiar teachings now require immediate evaluation upon which this thesis is at least a starting point. How could any seminary or affiliated denomination be so irresponsible anymore as to not be Bereans, who examined even the apostle Paul “to see if these things be so”, or neglect to consider New Calvinism’s tremendous influence upon their own church members? How can MacArthur and Phil Johnson not consider what has been presented here either while giving their firm right hand of fellowship with John Piper and Founders Ministries? (Are not serious errors considered lightly these days instead of as dangerous heresies?) Founders Ministries should be given a fair hearing and publish their own paper to either clear themselves of these errors or show any mistakes in this presentation. The Prosecution has made a compelling case. Where is their Defense, or Confession and repentance? (Surely many have been carried along naively, and might now be awakened!)
To be neutral or silent is no longer a responsible position. What has been presented should be the basis and foundation for independent inquiry and critical examination. Presently, the silence is deafening, probably because “the fear of men brings a snare”. Impartiality in examining this is needed as much as with an unbias secular jury. The leaven must be purged out lest the whole lump of “Calvinistic churches” be leavened with error. Ecclesiastical separation, after careful and thoughtful examination, at some point will be necessary unless “certain men” repent or recant.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
This was a very helpful and clear presentation explaining the New Calvinism history and “connecting the dots” with sound evidence and proofs. It is no longer possible to ignore this thesis. It is remarkable research that you have put into this. Any unbias reader and listener to the videos can see that you have established your position of proving the sources of the errors and “the men who have crept in unawares” with well-documented arguments that ought to be considered by all.
This 3-part video made an important clarification. Until now, I had misinterpreted (and believe others might have too) your meaning of the Flowchart which appeared to show that ALL Reformed Baptists were being heaped together into the New Calvinism movement and the errors and heresies of a few, largely because of the diagram’s construction and the juxtaposition of John Piper’s name in a box near to Walter Chantry. (Maybe arrows reflecting the “push back” you mention would be helpful). You made it clear however (as many among Reformed Baptists know) that Walter Chantry as well as even Earnest Reisinger had opposed the antinomian heresy of New Covenant Theology (albeit some thought it not damnable heresy, as if Christ’s perfect obedience to the moral law gave us liberty to break it, and forgetting that “sin is lawlessness”–1 Jn.). Clearly, as you point out, Richard Barcellos book, Defense of the Decalogue (also in the chart), was written to publicly and formally refute the evident error of many “Calvinistic” Southern Baptists including among the Founders Movement, as well as other Sovereign Grace Baptists (who reject historic Baptist Confessions, yet claim to follow John Gill), who “abolish the law” (contrary to Jesus own words) and redefine sanctification. Have you provided a copy of your book for both Chantry and Barcellos to consider for their review? That could prove very beneficial and urge serious consideration about New Calvinism and bring the matter to a head.
Reformed Baptists, who are somewhat associated with (by their own endorsements and frequent quoting of John Piper) and association with Founders Ministries (including church lists) must now must respond to clear themselves, church by church (possibly in their online Beliefs), as to their view of justification, sanctification, New Covenant Theology, and the New Calvinism movement, at least in fairness to their members or those seeking a sound church. Otherwise wandering sheep are prey to false shepherds who seek to corral them in. (And this really is about souls, isn’t it?)
Frankly, what is presented ought to be reviewed by all Reformed Seminaries, especially Reformed Baptist and Southern Seminary professors for a formal response, as well as the Association of Reformed Baptists or other non-affiliated Reformed Baptist congregations. There is now too much a stake to remain silent or neutral with the facts laid out. Any professors or classes in recent Church History ought to consider what is presented here as well as classes on Doctrine (instead of always speaking as if the dangers are only from the world). The influence of the New Calvinist movement and its very peculiar teachings now require immediate evaluation upon which this thesis is at least a starting point. How could any seminary or affiliated denomination be so irresponsible anymore as to not be Bereans, who examined even the apostle Paul “to see if these things be so”, or neglect to consider New Calvinism’s tremendous influence upon their own church members? How can MacArthur and Phil Johnson not consider what has been presented here either while giving their firm right hand of fellowship with John Piper and Founders Ministries? (Are not serious errors considered lightly these days instead of as dangerous heresies?) Founders Ministries should be given a fair hearing and publish their own paper to either clear themselves of these errors or show any mistakes in this presentation. The Prosecution has made a compelling case. Where is their Defense, or Confession and repentance? (Surely many have been carried along naively, and might now be awakened!)
To be neutral or silent is no longer a responsible position. What has been presented should be the basis and foundation for independent inquiry and critical examination. Presently, the silence is deafening, probably because “the fear of men brings a snare”. Impartiality in examining this is needed as much as with an unbias secular jury. The leaven must be purged out lest the whole lump of “Calvinistic churches” be leavened with error. Ecclesiastical separation, after careful and thoughtful examination, at some point will be necessary unless “certain men” repent or recant.
LikeLike