New Calvinism Further Exposed With Help From Aaron O’Kelly: Part One
This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did.
A New Calvinist blogger by the name of Aaron O’Kelly has responded to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin. Among many other accomplishments, Aaron obtained a doctorate degree from Southern seminary which is of particular interest to me as a Southern Baptist.
I will address the title of Aaron’s post first. It exemplifies the New Calvinist motif: us against them; evangelical Catholicism against the children of Luther; the scandalous doctrine of freedom; and partaking with Paul the apostle in being called an antinomian, etc. Though I could cite a gazillion examples, one from New Calvinist guru Tullian Tchividjian should suffice:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters.”
That’s the mentality—they are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians. Let that sink in. Towards the end of his post, Aaron eludes to their kinship with the great apostle in being called antinomian because they have discovered the long lost gospel:
“Dohse’s open letter is one more indication of how scandalous the gospel really is. When we receive the unfathomable good news that God receives us into his favor on account of Christ alone, and not because of anything in us, we instinctively recoil in an attempt to protect this glorious message from the charge of antinomianism. The pure gospel is too strong for us, and we think we need to mix it with a good bit of law to keep it from becoming too dangerous.”
And:
“But the gospel of the New Testament is the good news of freedom from the law through union with the crucified and risen Christ (Romans 7:1-7). It is a message that Paul was slandered for proclaiming, as though he encouraged sin (Romans 3:8). And those who have proclaimed it faithfully have been slandered ever since.”
O’Kelly also mentions that he considers himself a “Luthero-Calvinistic Baptist, but that hasn’t caught on yet.” Give it time Aaron, I’m sure it will eventually. After all, like Luther, New Calvinists are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians.
I might also mention that the we are like the apostle Paul because he was accused of antinomianism also was tried on Jason Hood when New Calvinist Dane Ortlund responded to his calling out of Tchividjian. I comment on the exchange in another post:
“Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlund’s original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being ‘falsely’ accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!”
Hood’s theological trouncing of Ortland’s position can be observed here: http://goo.gl/wYTrV .
Much of Aaron O’Kelly’s (hereafter: “A-OK”) post addresses the genealogy chart. Perfect. After likening me to a government worker, he says the following:
“All kidding aside, charts like these have the effect of distorting the character of broad movements by implying that the adherents of the movement are members of a tightly knit group (cult?) who have conspired together to defend the novel teachings of their founder(s), to whom they are staunchly loyal.”
“Genealogy charts” and “family trees” (terms I use often to refer to the chart) in no way infer what A-OK is saying. Theological frameworks often leave behind a long history of people who never knew each other. Besides, the theological journal of the Australian Forum (hereafter: “AF”), Present Truth (hereafter “PT”), had a huge readership in Reformed Baptist circles and places like Westminster Seminary. In fact, Jon Zens was introduced to Brinsmead and the Forum through PT while he was a student at Westminster. To make my point, A-OK states the following concerning the top of the chart:
“I myself have never heard of the majority of names at the top of the list. I have heard of Graeme Goldsworthy, and I think he is an excellent Bible teacher. He is one influence among many (including some other names on the chart, but also including a large number of names that are not) who has played a role in my understanding of the Bible. Does that make me a card-carrying member of the group represented by this chart? If so, I must have missed the meeting where we learned the password and the secret handshake.”
So, A-OK seems to say that he has never heard of Zens or Brinsmead (he implies that Goldsworthy is the only one he knows of at the top of the chart), but it is well documented that Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology with considerable contributions by Brinsmead. Certainly, A-OK has heard of New Covenant Theology. He may even ascribe to it, but that doesn’t mean he’s a loyal follower of Jon Zens; or for that matter, even knew him or heard of him which seems to be the case.
Another indication that one does not need to know of the conceivers of a doctrine (or that my chart would imply a conspiracy) to embrace its elements passed on by various means, is the fact that A-OK parrots the AF’s position on the supposed subjective aspect of the gospel—even using their terminology. Here is what he writes:
“I am not sure why Dohse would consider it controversial to say ‘the gospel is something completely outside of us.’ To say otherwise would be to imply that salvation comes, at least in part, by gazing at our navels.”
Now consider what one of the AF3 wrote (Geoffrey Paxton, who I doubt he has heard of either) on the same wise:
“Such evangelical naval watching does nothing to commend Christianity….” (The False Gospel of the New Birth PT vol.37 article 4). The AF3 continually referred to “naval watching” when discussing the supposed subjective aspects of the gospel verses the objective gospel.
Another example would be Michael Horton who said this: “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?” Compared to G. Paxton who said this: “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.”
Furthermore, A-OK prefaces the following statement in regard to the chart:
“By the way, I am speaking the language of Luther here; I am in no way indebted to the ‘Sonship theology’ that Dohse criticizes, nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.”
This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did. Moreover, the present-day New Calvinist movement is replete with Miller’s spiritual children; namely, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Jerry Bridges, Darren Patrick, Mark Driscoll, and many others.
But now the most important points about the chart: First, it raises questions of integrity. Why does Keller and Powlison avoid the Sonship nomenclature among New Calvinist? You say, “They don’t” Then why do New Calvinist constantly espouse the phrase Miller invented, but yet they have never even heard of Sonship theology? O’Kelley said himself as one who is apparently qualified to write a response to the chart: “….nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.” I think this also adds to my aforementioned point as well—my chart hardly implies an accusation concerning a conspiracy.
Secondly, New Calvinists can no longer pretend that notable evangelicals have never had a problem with this doctrine. And to a more significant point, notable Calvinist themselves! And I don’t mean secondary disagreements, I mean, “This movement must be exposed and stopped.”
Thirdly, New Calvinist hacks can no longer go to conferences and pretend that all of the keynote speakers are parachuted in from Luther’s compound. Those days are over, and rightfully so.
Well, we have much more work to do on O’Kelly’s post. Lord willing, I will write part two tomorrow.
paul
Great Link
Peter Lumpkins posted a great find on his blog. It is a link to fourteen copies of Jay Adams’ book on Sonship Theology. The cost of the books reflect the fact that it is unfortunately out of print. Here is the link: http://goo.gl/SPlS6
New Calvinism’s Lawless, Conscienceless Gospel
While taking a short break yesterday, I decided to do some channel surfing. I stumbled across the movie, “Veronica Guerin.” The movie is based on a true story. Guerin was an Irish Journalist who started writing about the Irish mob during the 90’s. They didn’t like that. They warned her to stop thrice: once by firing shots through the front of her house, once by threatening to kidnap her son, and once by shooting her in the leg. She wouldn’t stop. This courage eventually caught up with her in 1996 when she was assassinated by Irish drug lords. They shot her six times with a .357 magnum. Her murder evoked outrage among the general public and led to laws being passed that decimated the Irish mob. One such law enabled the government to seize any asset that couldn’t be validated by a source.
This all caused me to revisit something that has always haunted me because I wondered if she was a Christian. I don’t know if she was or not, but for sure, unbelievers often partake in heroic and righteous acts that do nothing to earn them any favor with God for salvation purposes. I always find myself pleading their case before God with a heart that admires them for their courage or righteous acts, often knowing they have something I don’t have at times, even as a Christian. Some theologians say their righteous acts are ALWAYS for the wrong motives, but I don’t buy that for a second.
One such case, that of Oskar Schindler, almost demands a verdict on the question. As far as can be ascertained, he wasn’t a Christian: “Although he never formally renounced his religion, Oskar was never more than an indifferent Catholic” (The New York Times. 13 October 1974). Schindler’s heroics in saving 1200 Jews during WWII is well documented. He employed them in his munitions factory, and had them classified as vital workers in the war effort when the fact of the matter was that many of them did not possess those qualifications. Motives? He dissipated the profits of the lucrative business to support workers who could not really contribute to the bottom line, but was merely supplying cover for them.
However, in study that has become necessary due to the pious proclamations of New Calvinism concerning the supposed dichotomies between law and gospel, I think I am much closer to an answer. As a typical dumbed-down Christian of this era, enslaved to the musings of arrogant seminarians, I have only recently begun to understand the biblical concept of all humanity being born under the law. It’s a broad subject, but the element I would like to focus on is the fact that under the auspices of this topic is the reality that every human born on earth has the law of God written on their heart.
Which is another fascinating biblical topic (and another reason why New Calvinists want you to think the Bible is not topical), the whole subject of writing on hearts. New Calvinist, especially the New Covenant Theology type, make a really big deal out of the law being written on our hearts by God in the New Covenant as if writing on the heart is unique to the New Covenant. Before that, supposedly, it’s significant that the law was written on tablets of cold, hard, stone rather than our whittle soft, fleshy hearts. It adds to the whole New Calvinist motif that there is some great gulf between law and gospel. Only problem is, among many others—the complete culmination of the New Covenant is obviously future (see Jeremiah 31), and there are other forms of heart writing going on. In fact, in the Old Testament, WE are commanded to write the word of God on our own hearts:
“Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.
Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:2,3).
“Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man” (Proverbs 3:3,4).
Then in Romans 2:14,15 we find the following:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
So, the law of God, in some kind of general form, is written on the hearts of all people and administered through the conscience. On that same wise, even Christians are commanded to yield to their consciences: Acts 23:1, 24:16, Romans 9:1, 13:5 (not necessarily proof of innocence: 1Corinthians 4:4), 2Corinthians 1:12, 4:2, 5:11, 1Timothy 1:5, 1:19, 3:9, 2Timothy 1:3, and Titus 1:5.
Is this law written on the hearts of all people responsible for their heroic actions? I strongly suspect that’s the case. Interestingly, here is what Herbert Steinhouse wrote about Oskar Schindler in The Real Oskar Schindler:
“Oskar Schindler’s exceptional deeds stemmed from just that elementary sense of decency and humanity that our sophisticated age seldom sincerely believes in. A repentant opportunist saw the light and rebelled against the sadism and vile criminality all around him. The inference may be disappointingly simple, especially for all amateur psychoanalysts who would prefer the deeper and more mysterious motive that may, it is true, still lie unprobed and unappreciated. But an hour with Oskar Schindler encourages belief in the simple answer.”
But what of biblical texts like Isaiah 64:6 which says, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
I believe this text speaks of individuals who attempt to earn salvation through righteous acts, or to prove to God (or to themselves) that they are “good” people. Unlike New Calvinist, I reject the idea that this text refers to all righteous acts of all people—even Christians. I seriously doubt that God sees the saving of a child from a burning house as “filthy rags.” Many writers mention that nobody knows for sure why Oskar Schindler did what he did, including himself, but if Oskar Schindler was a confirmed Christian—that would be the reason given, and often is. The crux of the great mystery surrounding Oskar Schindler is that he was a German; and what he did for Jews, and wasn’t a Christian to boot. No?
So what does this say regarding the New Calvinist attitude towards the law? Can we really reach a lost world when unbelievers put more stock in the law written on their hearts (even if they are unaware of it) than professing Christians put in the actual written, every word that comes from the mouth of God, detailed law of God? Would a gospel message that devalues the word of God not be a violation of their own consciences in many cases? What of the New Calvinist mantra that trying to show forth the gospel with our good works is “trying to be the gospel rather than speaking gospel.” Is that a message that is going to resonate with those who only do what’s right because of the law of God written on their hearts? It’s doubtful.
It seems that a gospel that includes this truth about the law is also a gospel that speaks powerfully to people who are morally upright; in many cases, more so than professing Christians. They only do what they do because of what God wrote on their hearts, but the problem is, they will be judged by that same law. Both Christians and unbelievers will be judged by the law (but not for justification). For Christians it will determine eternal rewards (2Corinthians 5:10). For unbelievers, it will determine their degree of eternal punishment (Matthew 11:24).
And let there be no doubt, when unbelievers judge Christians, it’s according to the law as well. If our lives don’t even measure up to the standard of their own consciences, then “As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Romans 2:24,). Jesus said in Matthew 5:16, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”
When Christ began his ministry, the religious climate was barely any different than today. Apparently, it was commonly taught that a prophet would come and abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). The religious leaders of that day had a “relaxed” attitude towards the law (Matthew 5:19), and contrary to the New Calvinist lie that the Pharisees were expert law-keepers, Christ warned His audience that their righteousness needed to surpass that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) who were “lawless” both in their inward thought life and outward behavior (Matthew 23:28, 34-36). They also commonly misapplied the word of God according to their own preference (Matthew 5:21-48, 15:1-9) making the law of God “void” (Matthew 15:6).
As New Calvinism deemphasizes the law and dumbs it down into a gospel narrative
(reductionism), the unregenerate will practice just as many attributes as professing Christians display—the same attributes that Peter commanded us to add to our faith in 2Peter 1:5-11. Basically, New Calvinism is blurring the line that unbelievers know is there.
When unbelievers do extraordinary things, though it is applauded, it is not really known why they do it. Heroes are still a mystery. On the other hand, these are imperatives spoken of in God’s word; for example, courage, virtue, justice, etc. So when Christians do these things, it is assumed that they did it because they are Christians—it’s what Christians do—because they are God’s children and we are like him.
New Calvinism asserts that all the righteous acts of men are filthy rags. The ONLY difference between us and the unregenerate is BELIEF in the “historic Christ event.” Well, the demons believe in that event also and shudder. And unbelievers are not going to buy that package either—their consciences won’t let them. But isn’t the movement growing? Right, with a bunch of professing Christians looking for the latest novelty—heaping to themselves teachers with itching ears.
paul
4 comments