Kevin DeYoung Bagged by the New Calvinist Slither Police, Part1
Man! What a day for emails! Two weeks ago, Robert Brinsmead agreed to an interview via back and forth email. So, my morning started out with his return of my first ten questions. His answers were more help than I could have ever hoped for, and actually have some relevance here. This interrupted my intentions of returning two excellent emails I received from a couple of readers late last night that are very interesting as well. I couldn’t wait to get back from running errands in order to reply to the emails, but when I logged on, I noticed that I received another email with three links.
I began to read the first one, and thought, “Is this the beginning of the Great Slither?” What’s that? Well, New Calvinism (NC) is so nuanced that when (or if) God’s people catch on, I predict that many of the who’s who of NC will slowly slither back into orthodoxy and play dumb. Some keep themselves in a position where they can say, “Hey man, I only hung-out with those guys at conferences because they’re really cool—uh, I mean, nice guys. I never believed any of that stuff.” For example, Al Mohler already denies that he knows anybody who believes “we are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us” even though he is one of the “core four” of T4G. Nevertheless, I would welcome the Great Slither—am sure God would sort out all of the damage that has been done at a later date.
The first link was an article by Kevin DeYoung entitled, “Make Every Effort” ( http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/06/07/make-every-effort/ ) The article is eight paragraphs and the first four are hardcore orthodoxy. Many biblically accurate statements are made, but these capture the gist: “Count the letters carefully: effort is not a four letter word”; “It is the consistent witness of the New Testament that growth in godliness requires exertion on the part of the Christian.”
Of course, like all good New Calvinist, DeYoung then uses the last four paragraphs to “qualify” those statements. For example: “Obviously, even when we work, it is never meritorious. Our effort can never win God’s justifying favor. In fact, whatever we manage to work out is really what God purposed to work in us (Phil. 2:12-13; cf. Heb. 2:11). The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.”
Note that our (that would be us Christians) work is never meritorious, and cannot win God’s justifying favor. This statement subtly synthesizes justification and sanctification. As Christians, the legal declaration and imputed righteousness of Christ in justification is a onetime, done deal. It is also an act of God alone, and by faith alone. But our work in sanctification is to please God with the help of the Holy Spirit—not an attempt to be justified by our own merits, that’s impossible. But in the process, rewards and blessings are promised. DeYoung doesn’t qualify any of this in his statement, and for a reason. Note that he says, “The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.” The “gospel” as he uses it here concerns justification; so, if we can’t work in justification, and the gospel is the “A-Z” of the Christian life, how can we rightfully work in the sanctification process without doing violence to justification? This statement contradicts everything he says in the first four paragraphs. What DeYoung really means by the “effort” he talks about in the first four paragraphs is reflected in the title of a follow-up article: “Gospel-Driven Effort.” That’s effort driven by the gospel; in other words, “Christians live by the same gospel that saved us,” and works (they rarely say “our works”) flow from that. I address this fundamental error of sanctification by justification here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Jh .
All in all, DeYoung’s article was a typical nuanced, double-speaking masterpiece. I was literally close to the monitor, sipping my McDonalds coffee, and muttering, “Awesome— #%@* this guy’s good, maybe the best I’ve seen yet.” Yes, this is the kind of article people send me with accusations that I “slander” New Calvinist: “See, he believes in exertion in the sanctification process—pull it down right now! Pull it down!” But, whose exertion? And exertion in what? Believing and deep repentance only? An exertion that has no moral value without joy?
No, no, this article was not slithering. But the New Calvinist Slither Police wanted to make sure. Officer Tullian Tchividjian (TT) is on the case, calling out DeYoung for sounding too orthodox. TT filed the following police report here:
( http://www.christianpost.com/news/work-hard-but-in-which-direction-51115/ ).
DeYoung himself acknowledged in his follow-up article that TT wrote the article to “pushback” against what he wrote. TT’s article was an unabashed reaffirmation to the Koolaid drinking faithful that all is well.
TT’s article was full of the more blatant forms of what DeYoung said NC isn’t in his first article: “let go and let God” theology. Despite TT’s deceptive affirmations throughout the article, at one point he says this: “Many conclude that justification is step one and that sanctification is step two and that once we get to step two there’s no reason to go back to step one. Sanctification, in other words, is commonly understood as progress beyond the initial step of justification. But while justification and sanctification are to be clearly separated theologically, the Bible won’t allow us to separate them essentially and functionally.” Got that? They are theologically separate, but not functionally separate. Huh? Nevertheless, again, this contradicts TT’s claim that he believes in effort being exerted by believers in the sanctification process. As a matter of fact, he clarifies what NC are really talking about when they speak of hard work: “Sanctification is the hard work of going back to the certainty of our already secured pardon in Christ and hitting the refresh button over and over,” and, “It is in this context that I’ve said before how sanctification is the hard work of getting used to our justification.” Got that? Let there be no doubt: this is the NC idea of hard work in the sanctification process; be not deceived.
Furthermore, TT puts the icing on the cake by saying the following: “Christ’s subjective work in us is his constantly driving us back to the reality of his objective work for us. Sanctification feeds on justification, not the other way around.” This statement should give you a clue as to who NC think is really doing the work, but not only that, if sanctification “feeds on justification,” one only needs to remember that justification is by faith alone apart from works. In future posts, based on my correspondence with Robert Brinsmead, I will be illustrating how the centrality of the objective gospel (reread TT’s quote above) created by the Australian Forum is the embryo from which NC has developed into what it is today.
Can Kevin DeYoung be Saved From the Dark Side?
DeYoung’s response to TT’s report was truly pathetic. It is a tortured exercise in not appearing as one corrected, while trying to avoid a possible indictment by the NC district attorney. Not only that, in his introduction, he shares the deep subjects he will be considering while on his forthcoming sabbatical (go figure, another NC taking a sabbatical):
- Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
- Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
- Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both trying to find a root sin?
- How are justification and sanctification related?
- Can we obey God?
- Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we have done as we were commanded?
- How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
- Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
- Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness and content with little progress in godliness)?
- What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
Any believer worth their salt should know the answers to those questions; and this guy is one of the NC big dogs? He needs a sabbatical to figure out those questions?! And didn’t he just answer most of those questions in his first and second articles? Could this be a cry for help? Could it be a ploy? Is he going to skip bail?
Paul
Open Discussion: The Horton Statement That Nobody Wants To Talk About
Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.”
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 10: A Strong Finish For “Dr.” John MacArthur Not Looking Good
“Where did this ‘eclipsing Christ’ standard of truth come from? And does it add anything to the genealogy hypothesis?”
When I saw the advertisement, my heart sank. In my wrestling with proponents of Gospel Sanctification over the years, one of their mantranized mottos has been whether or not something “eclipses Christ” as a primary standard for determining truth. As others will attest who witnessed the hostile takeover of Clearcreek Chapel by the Chad Bresson cartel, “I have a problem with that view because it eclipses Christ” was a phrase that was constantly heard.
Back to the advertisement: MacArthur has written the forward to a new book written by one of his close ministry associates, Rick Holland. The title of the book is, “Uneclipsing The Son” by “Dr.” (a title that more and more is becoming a sign of danger more than respect) Rick Holland. Even from the standpoint of this (me) Evangelical peasant, “Dr.” MacArthur’s forward to the book raises troubling questions:
“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 heart.”
I asked the Sultana of Optimism, my wife Susan, to evaluate the statement. She immediately pointed out that the second part of the statement concerning private meditation was biblically untrue for many reasons. As far as Christ ALWAYS being the CENTRAL theme of the gospel, I will address that in future parts. Granted, Christ must always be part of a gospel presentation, it’s not the gospel without Him, but is He always the one and only central theme of the presentation as MacArthur suggests? Is Christ the only one who “deserves” to be a central figure of the gospel? Phil Johnson’s (the Executive Director of MacArthur’s ministry) endorsement of the book is even more disturbing as his statement mirrors John Piper contemplative spirituality:
“We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 135:15-18). So the key to sanctification and spiritual maturity is a simple principle: As we set our affections on Christ and keep Him at the center of all our thoughts, activities, desires, and ambitions, we are transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
Barry E. Horner also echo’s concern on page 192 of Future Israel when he writes: ‘This is not an insignificant point since it is common today, especially within Reformed Christianity as Thomas Smail pointed out in The Forgotten Father, for an incorrect prominence to be given to Jesus Christ (as though impossible to challenge) that results in biblical distortion.’”
As far as meditation on Christ alone being the one “simple” principle for sanctification as stated by Phil Johnson above, Dr. Jay E. Adams states:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Where did this eclipsing Christ standard of truth come from? And does it add to the genealogy hypothesis? (http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ) (Revised: http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). You be the judge. The following are excerpts from the Australian Forum archives, one excerpt per article:
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church falls under the bondage of legalism.
…faith and never want to lose it, and may even fear that if any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …
From “The Centrality of the Gospel”: evangelical preaching has contributed more to the eclipse of the Bible than we would ever dare to imagine.
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away from Christ and transferred to either our renewal or …[same statement used in at least three other articles].
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness!
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church … and rapturous experience) of having Christ come into the heart—and then …
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, … grace alone, on account of Christ’s obedience alone, and received by faith alone …
truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the …
Church history may be seen as a struggle to keep law and gospel in proper tension. When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, …
Because they are put in the very room of the gospel! They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away …
… any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. Similarly, non-believers may reject the gospel because of their …
Tavard explains that when Luther began his work as a Reformer, the gospel was in “partial eclipse.” The Council of Trent, however, “reformulated” the gospel …
These sample statements were gleaned from the AF archives by a cursory search. Uneclipsing the Son (or his works) is a dominate theme that saturates AF doctrine.
Legacies are usually determined by how we end. This brings to mind something that we may want to meditate on often: the call to persevere. Christ didn’t say meditating on Him makes perseverance easy or guarantees that He will do it for us. MacArthur may not believe that, but he certainly lends credibility to those who do. Will the last leg of his ministry be remembered as lending creditability to Antinomians and even embracing their doctrines? I think it’s very likely.
If I had to bet, would I bet that I will find uncanny parallels between Holland’s new book and the AF archives? Absolutely. I am working on several side-by-side quotation charts, I trust that “Dr.” Holland will have a significant contribution to the comparisons.
paul









5 comments