Wilson may not be as anti-new Calvinism as you think he should be, but he’s pretty pro-law and pro-obedience. His reference the Kuyper is more relevant than anything about Piper or Horton (he and horton dot get along well, on matters of law)
Sergius Martin-George said, on March 21, 2012 at 2:05 PM
But is he really saying they should “take over everything” as opposed to suggesting that they merely being engaged widely? And are the new Calvinists also not fairly well represented by two-kingdom folk as well?
paulspassingthoughts said, on March 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM
SMG,
Here’s my big chance to get some Cliff Notes on this hyper-Gnostic movement. Please explain the whole two kingdoms discussion that the newbies have started to avoid dealing with who they really are. Also, the day has at least come that will not allow them to “widely engage” covertly. I know of at least three situations right now where NC not only have to deal with the disagreement aspect, but the folks know who they are and exactly what they believe. makes me feel good. But anyway–give me that learnin on the two kingdoms discussion.
paulspassingthoughts said, on March 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM
Right. Ferguson’s quote is right from the Australian Forum’s central doctrine. All truth and reality is outside of us. That’s a good quote to illustrate that point.
paulspassingthoughts said, on March 21, 2012 at 4:46 PM
Tim,
Really? Even as a Christian? Please explain. As Christians, our love for the truth is not in us? Why I’m I “done” if God’s truth is in me and of me and guides me? Please explain.
paulspassingthoughts said, on March 22, 2012 at 8:37 PM
Tim,
I realize you are posing this as a question, and not a statement, but in regard to New Calvinist theology, it is the mother lode.
First, this is not an orthodox view of redemption. Missing is the election of God. If God didn’t set apart, elect, justify, and guarantee glorification, anything Christ did would be for naught. There is NO salvation without the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but even then, if the Father does not “draw” them, or “call” them, or “give” them to Christ, His works on the cross are of no effect. God elects before the recipient is born, and “draws” them to Christ after the recipient is old enough to comprehend the gospel. This makes John MacArthur’s statements in the Forward of Rick Holland’s book very unsettling:
“Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.”
“The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.”
These words by MacArthur harken back to where this doctrine came from. In the Shaking of Adventism by Geoffrey Paxton, one of the core four of the Australian Forum, he states the following:
“Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity!”
Secondly, “The work of Christ FOR us” is normally a heretical New Calvinist truism that propagates the idea that Christ’s obedience while living on earth was imputed to us for sanctification. In other words, obedience in sanctification was imputed in the same way that righteousness is. Therefore, not only were we justified apart from the law, we are sanctified apart from the law. Christ supposedly kept the law for us and His obedience was then imputed to our sanctification as a substitution for our obedience in order to properly maintain progressive justification (factiously called “progressive sanctification” by New Calvinists). Of course, there are huge problems with this view of double imputation; namely, that Christ’s obedience was imputed to us for sanctification—making any effort on our part in sanctification an attempt to replace works that were part of the atonement. Moreover, sanctification apart from the law is a direct contradiction of John 17:17.
Thirdly, on the statements second aspect of redemption: New Calvinists view the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of the spirit realm by position and reality. Believers do not change, and are still totally depraved—they merely manifest the flesh realm or the spirit realm at any given moment. When the spirit realm is displayed, it is the active obedience of Christ and not our own. This is opposed to the orthodox interpretation that we are new creatures that obey by our effort in sanctification with the help and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
Fourthly, on the third aspect of redemption, we have the smoking gun:
“….and the third — our lives of obedience and service in deep gratitude to God, “because of acceptance”, not “for acceptance”.”
Because of acceptance and not for acceptance in regard to what? Well, our subject is justification (redemption). This statement clearly illustrates that New Calvinists believe that our works in sanctification (“our lives of obedience and service”) can affect our justification if not done out of nothing else but, “deep gratitude.” Anything that is not done out of deep gratitude (feelings) is done out of an attempt to gain acceptance for justification. If not done out of “deep” gratitude, it supposedly isn’t driven by a realization of works already accomplished for our redemption.
But in orthodox redemption, these concerns are not even on the radar screen for NOTHING we do in sanctification can affect our justification. What we do in sanctification can affect our Father/son/daughter relationship with a heavenly Father who is displeased with us at times, but our redemption cannot be affected. The statement categorizes all obedience apart from “deep gratitude” as an attempt to gain acceptance for the purpose of justifying ourselves.
“Deep” gratitude for what? Well, our subject matter, redemption. Where can we find such gratitude? In the Scriptures. When we see the works of Christ “for us” in the Scriptures, such gratitude is imputed to us and obedience is a “mere natural flow.” This is why New Calvinists teach that the Bible should only be used “in the service of the gospel.” In fact, they teach that the Holy Spirit only illumines according to what the works of Christ are in the Bible.
This is because justification and sanctification are fused together, and if done improperly, sanctification will not get us to glorification. All woks in sanctification must be a proper “justification in action,” If sanctification is not performed properly, we are not “grounded” in the justification that we must be found in on the judgment day. This is clearly works salvation by doing just the right thing in sanctification, and guess who we need to maneuver us through these treacherous waters with heaven and hell in the balance? The New Calvinists of course.
Lastly, you present this statement as follows:
“Since, historically, most exegetical debate or error has been a matter of “emphasis”, which of these three aspects of Redemption should the Church emphasize?”
This is right out of the Australian Forum teachings that “emphasis” is the difference between true doctrine and a false gospel. The Forum believed that most evangelicals would state that your aspect #2 is the most important, or the one that should be most emphasized in sanctification. Which is true, the new birth is more of an emphasis in sanctification than the finished work of justification that saved us. But the Forum contended that to emphasize the new birth more in sanctification than the works of Christ for salvation was to make the “fruit” the “root.” This enabled the Forum to attest to the new birth as true, but on the other hand deny its significance because what we “emphasize” is the end game.
Not only that, it was the Forum’s contention that to emphasize works or law more than gospel IN SANCTIFICATION was to make the “fruit” the most important thing instead of the “best” thing. They also said that this “reversed justification and sanctification” by making the “fruit the root” which in their book was works salvation. Hence, because justification and sanctification are fused, and sanctification maintains justification until glorification, this improper approach to sanctification (making the fruit the root) “puts ones soul in peril” according to John Piper.
This is what the New Calvinist gospel does: claims that only one of three aspects concerning redemption can be “emphasized” in sanctification to be the true gospel, and thus collapses justification into sanctification accordingly. Then it makes the other two (which are also misrepresented) the fruit of justification (the root). The new birth is misrepresented as being placed in a different realm rather than actual new creaturehood, and obedience is misrepresented as always being legitimized by enthusiastic gratitude. New Calvinists can then deny all of the blatant contradictions of the plain sense of Scripture by claiming that everything in the Bible must be seen in its “gospel context.”
This is the essence of New Calvinism. The initial statement appears orthodox until you closely examine the statement in light of Scripture. Christians must be good Bereans in order to not be led astray by this doctrine.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Perhaps it’s just me, but it’s not entirely clear specifically which comments by Pastor Wilson you find objectionable. Perhaps you could expound?
LikeLike
God owns everything + We represent God = We need to take ownership of everything for God with our version of the gospel.
This is a classic NC mentality.
LikeLike
I guess his comments are striking in regard to the takeover mentality I see in the movement.
LikeLike
Wilson may not be as anti-new Calvinism as you think he should be, but he’s pretty pro-law and pro-obedience. His reference the Kuyper is more relevant than anything about Piper or Horton (he and horton dot get along well, on matters of law)
LikeLike
Thanks PG, I will look into that.
LikeLike
But is he really saying they should “take over everything” as opposed to suggesting that they merely being engaged widely? And are the new Calvinists also not fairly well represented by two-kingdom folk as well?
LikeLike
SMG,
Here’s my big chance to get some Cliff Notes on this hyper-Gnostic movement. Please explain the whole two kingdoms discussion that the newbies have started to avoid dealing with who they really are. Also, the day has at least come that will not allow them to “widely engage” covertly. I know of at least three situations right now where NC not only have to deal with the disagreement aspect, but the folks know who they are and exactly what they believe. makes me feel good. But anyway–give me that learnin on the two kingdoms discussion.
LikeLike
Right. Ferguson’s quote is right from the Australian Forum’s central doctrine. All truth and reality is outside of us. That’s a good quote to illustrate that point.
LikeLike
Sorry, not following you here. I suspect you know a lot more about the 2K element among the New Calvinists than I do.
LikeLike
I know a little about it, but not much.
LikeLike
Tim,
Really? Even as a Christian? Please explain. As Christians, our love for the truth is not in us? Why I’m I “done” if God’s truth is in me and of me and guides me? Please explain.
LikeLike
Tim,
Your “standing”? So, if grace is inside of us, that changes our standing?
LikeLike
Tim,
How does sanctification relate to Romans 8:30?
LikeLike
Tim,
I realize you are posing this as a question, and not a statement, but in regard to New Calvinist theology, it is the mother lode.
First, this is not an orthodox view of redemption. Missing is the election of God. If God didn’t set apart, elect, justify, and guarantee glorification, anything Christ did would be for naught. There is NO salvation without the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, but even then, if the Father does not “draw” them, or “call” them, or “give” them to Christ, His works on the cross are of no effect. God elects before the recipient is born, and “draws” them to Christ after the recipient is old enough to comprehend the gospel. This makes John MacArthur’s statements in the Forward of Rick Holland’s book very unsettling:
“Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.”
“The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.”
These words by MacArthur harken back to where this doctrine came from. In the Shaking of Adventism by Geoffrey Paxton, one of the core four of the Australian Forum, he states the following:
“Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity!”
Secondly, “The work of Christ FOR us” is normally a heretical New Calvinist truism that propagates the idea that Christ’s obedience while living on earth was imputed to us for sanctification. In other words, obedience in sanctification was imputed in the same way that righteousness is. Therefore, not only were we justified apart from the law, we are sanctified apart from the law. Christ supposedly kept the law for us and His obedience was then imputed to our sanctification as a substitution for our obedience in order to properly maintain progressive justification (factiously called “progressive sanctification” by New Calvinists). Of course, there are huge problems with this view of double imputation; namely, that Christ’s obedience was imputed to us for sanctification—making any effort on our part in sanctification an attempt to replace works that were part of the atonement. Moreover, sanctification apart from the law is a direct contradiction of John 17:17.
Thirdly, on the statements second aspect of redemption: New Calvinists view the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a manifestation of the spirit realm by position and reality. Believers do not change, and are still totally depraved—they merely manifest the flesh realm or the spirit realm at any given moment. When the spirit realm is displayed, it is the active obedience of Christ and not our own. This is opposed to the orthodox interpretation that we are new creatures that obey by our effort in sanctification with the help and counsel of the Holy Spirit.
Fourthly, on the third aspect of redemption, we have the smoking gun:
“….and the third — our lives of obedience and service in deep gratitude to God, “because of acceptance”, not “for acceptance”.”
Because of acceptance and not for acceptance in regard to what? Well, our subject is justification (redemption). This statement clearly illustrates that New Calvinists believe that our works in sanctification (“our lives of obedience and service”) can affect our justification if not done out of nothing else but, “deep gratitude.” Anything that is not done out of deep gratitude (feelings) is done out of an attempt to gain acceptance for justification. If not done out of “deep” gratitude, it supposedly isn’t driven by a realization of works already accomplished for our redemption.
But in orthodox redemption, these concerns are not even on the radar screen for NOTHING we do in sanctification can affect our justification. What we do in sanctification can affect our Father/son/daughter relationship with a heavenly Father who is displeased with us at times, but our redemption cannot be affected. The statement categorizes all obedience apart from “deep gratitude” as an attempt to gain acceptance for the purpose of justifying ourselves.
“Deep” gratitude for what? Well, our subject matter, redemption. Where can we find such gratitude? In the Scriptures. When we see the works of Christ “for us” in the Scriptures, such gratitude is imputed to us and obedience is a “mere natural flow.” This is why New Calvinists teach that the Bible should only be used “in the service of the gospel.” In fact, they teach that the Holy Spirit only illumines according to what the works of Christ are in the Bible.
This is because justification and sanctification are fused together, and if done improperly, sanctification will not get us to glorification. All woks in sanctification must be a proper “justification in action,” If sanctification is not performed properly, we are not “grounded” in the justification that we must be found in on the judgment day. This is clearly works salvation by doing just the right thing in sanctification, and guess who we need to maneuver us through these treacherous waters with heaven and hell in the balance? The New Calvinists of course.
Lastly, you present this statement as follows:
“Since, historically, most exegetical debate or error has been a matter of “emphasis”, which of these three aspects of Redemption should the Church emphasize?”
This is right out of the Australian Forum teachings that “emphasis” is the difference between true doctrine and a false gospel. The Forum believed that most evangelicals would state that your aspect #2 is the most important, or the one that should be most emphasized in sanctification. Which is true, the new birth is more of an emphasis in sanctification than the finished work of justification that saved us. But the Forum contended that to emphasize the new birth more in sanctification than the works of Christ for salvation was to make the “fruit” the “root.” This enabled the Forum to attest to the new birth as true, but on the other hand deny its significance because what we “emphasize” is the end game.
Not only that, it was the Forum’s contention that to emphasize works or law more than gospel IN SANCTIFICATION was to make the “fruit” the most important thing instead of the “best” thing. They also said that this “reversed justification and sanctification” by making the “fruit the root” which in their book was works salvation. Hence, because justification and sanctification are fused, and sanctification maintains justification until glorification, this improper approach to sanctification (making the fruit the root) “puts ones soul in peril” according to John Piper.
This is what the New Calvinist gospel does: claims that only one of three aspects concerning redemption can be “emphasized” in sanctification to be the true gospel, and thus collapses justification into sanctification accordingly. Then it makes the other two (which are also misrepresented) the fruit of justification (the root). The new birth is misrepresented as being placed in a different realm rather than actual new creaturehood, and obedience is misrepresented as always being legitimized by enthusiastic gratitude. New Calvinists can then deny all of the blatant contradictions of the plain sense of Scripture by claiming that everything in the Bible must be seen in its “gospel context.”
This is the essence of New Calvinism. The initial statement appears orthodox until you closely examine the statement in light of Scripture. Christians must be good Bereans in order to not be led astray by this doctrine.
paul
LikeLike
No problem with that as long as a believer is singing it.
LikeLike