Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 7: The Birth of New Covenant Theology
“Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.”
As things become clearer, it seems the crux of New Calvinism is sanctification by objective justification. What’s that? Simply stated: all things relevant focus on Christ and His works outside of us (what they call the gospel). Any consideration of ourselves (subjective) in the mix, and anything else other than Christ and His works amounts to Existentialism. All reality must be interpreted through the gospel. In fact, truth can be truth until it is taught without being seen through the interpretive lens of Christ—then it becomes error. So, we aren’t really born again—that’s a subjective interpretation and insinuates that we can have a part in the sanctification process. The new birth must be seen “in its gospel context.” Hence, the Australian Forum said the following about the new birth, and even election: “Those who preach ‘Ye must be born again’ as the gospel are preaching a false gospel.” And, “A doctrine of election which takes as its starting point a philosophical concept instead of the gospel makes the Father the center and not Christ. A doctrine of election apart from Christ is inimical to sanctification and not its powerful source” (Present Truth Magazine Archives Vol. 24 #2).
This interpretive prism can be seen clearly in what is taught by contemporary New Calvinist. A predominant mantra among them is the idea that we are unable to approach the Scriptures without personal presuppositions (subjective). Therefore, ideas must not be drawn from the text (exegesis) because that’s subjective—the text must be interpreted through the gospel (eisegesis). This is why contemporary New Calvinist, as with the Australian Form, deny the new birth from our perspective: “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, In The Face Of God).
Compare Horton’s quote with one of the Australian Three, G. Paxton:
“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” (Present Truth Archives Vol. 37 #4)
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, but let me now use this quote by Chad Bresson to further this point and lead us into our subject:
“New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality” (Vossed World, “What is New Covenant Theology?”).
Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology, was totally onboard with sanctification by objective justification. He wrote an article for the Australian Forum entitled “Why Existential Theology Is Bankrupt” (Id Vol. 37 #4). Though sanctification by objective justification was probably not original with the Australian Forum (but the jury is still out on that), they definitely called for a systematic theology that would reconcile that doctrine to Scripture in all areas, and they specifically called for a “framework” in the areas of history, covenants, and eschatology (Ibid Volume XLVI). G. Goldsworthy, one of the AF3, would have been priceless in regard to a historical and eschatological framework, but it is my contention that Jon Zens answered the call for a covenantal framework.
Dennis M. Swanson of Master’s Seminary stated in his “Introduction to New Covenant Theology” that though Zens is not a focal person in the movement at this time—“he really started the movement” (p.152). Swanson further states that he believes Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981 (p.153).
In an unusual document by Zens entitled Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984), by Jon Zens, 1984”—Zens writes the following:
“I started receiving Present Truth (now Verdict) at Westminster Seminary (1972). I didn’t read it much, however, until 1975. The emphasis on justification was helpful to me at this time [that would be sanctification by objective justification alone].
In August, 1979 — through a series of fluke circumstances — I heard about some unadvertised meetings at a Ramada Inn in Nashville. For three days the editor of Verdict, Robert D. Brinsmead [the editor of Present Truth and the primary leader of the Australian Forum, and one of the AF3], was addressing about 150 Adventist-oriented people. I came Friday night and spoke with RDB and Jack Zwemer in their motel room for about two hours. We also talked for another two hours on Sunday night.
I was impressed by Brinsmead’s teachable, open spirit. He obviously did not feel threatened by my pointed and probing questions. One area that I asked him about was the idea that the law had to do a “work” before the gospel could come to folks. His magazine had been permeated with this concept. I suggested that if all things are to be approached through Christ, why do we put the law ahead of Him in evangelism? Where in Acts were the Ten Commandments preached before the gospel? He said he thought I had some good points and that he would reflect upon them. On Sunday night I gave him Richard Gaffin’s The Centrality of the Resurrection, Meredith Kline’s The Structure of Biblical Authority, and all of the back issues of BRR.
In January, 1980, Brinsmead called from California, just before he was to leave for Australia. He said that he had read the back issues, that he thought we [note: “WE”—] were on to something important [emphasis mine], and that he would study these matters closely in Australia. In 1981 some brilliant essays appeared in Verdict. “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” “Jesus and the Law,” And “The Heart of N.T. Ethics” presented a Christ-centered approach to ethics. It was certainly heartening to see this shift by the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at that time (sadly, since mid-1984 RDB went markedly downhill [right, not only was he a Seventh-Day Adventist, but he is now openly apostate by all standards]).”
Zens elaborated on his interaction with Brinsmead and discussed several Australian Forum articles published in Present Truth (later, Verdict), in This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him (Searching Together. Summer-Winter 1997, Vol. 25:1,2,3. Pages 67-71) Zens attached the following footnote to the article: “I met Mr. Brinsmead in August 1979, asked him to consider the centrality of Christ in Christian obedience, and gave him some materials to read. In January 1980, Brinsmead called me and indicated that these redemptive-historical points were worthy of consideration and further study.”
Here, we perceive the very cradle of New Covenant Theology. While working through the issues himself, Zens confronted Brinsmead in regard to the AF’s view on the law’s relationship to justification—which Zens had been “helped” by (their view on justification) while at Westminster. Brinsmead then called Zens in 1980 to say, “We [are] onto something important.” Then Brinsmead, according to Zens, published a string of “brilliant” articles as a result in 1981—the same year Swanson says Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology.” Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.
Zens was a Reformed Baptist pastor at the time, so it is easy to see how the doctrine has spread in that camp. Present Truth also had a significant readership in Reformed Baptist circles. Zens’ leanings toward antinomian type doctrines had already caused trouble among Reformed Baptist which resulted in William J Chantry writing the book, God’s Righteous Kingdom. As far as the Johnny-come-lately names of NCT, one website is quoted as saying the following: “Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, some have sought to develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology distinct from the Second London Confession position. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, and Michael W. Adams.”
According to Richard C Barcellos in Defense Of The Decalogue, the doctrine was still in transition as late as 2001 when he wrote his book. Its proponents will have to let us know when they get it nailed down, or perhaps they can solicit some help from Robert Brinsmead. Robert–phone home.
paul
Whatever Happened to the Bible? Part 1
The apostle Paul said it is the mind of Christ; but we really struggle with that—don’t we? Christ said we live by two things: bread; and every word that comes from the mouth of God, but we really struggle with that—don’t we? The apostle said that we are to demolish every thought that is contrary to God’s wisdom, but gee—sounds harsh doesn’t it?
It happened on the way home this morning; I hadn’t done it in a along time, so I thought I would give it a try. I reached down, manipulated the necessary radio knobs, and tuned into “K-love.” First thing I hear is a (if I remember the name correctly) Kathryn Graham espousing a ministry moment. It went something like this: “When we are in the midst of suffering, we often feel like we need to do something. But God will lead us out of our suffering in His time and in His way.” Sounds good, but is it true? No, it isn’t. My readventure with K-love lasted about 30 seconds. Throughout Scripture, trials are a call to many specific actions; and in the face of what we REALLY feel like doing: nothing!—except maybe wrong thinking, which can be a worship service of the baser sort.
Speaking of worship, I got home and logged into Facebook because my daughter texted me (via FB auto-text) with a link to an article written for Crosswalk.com by a Dr. Joe McKeever (hereafter “DJ”) entitled, “7 Things We Regularly Get Wrong About Worship.” At this writing, there are 32 comments praising the article up, down, and even sideways: “SO TRUE!” etc., etc. Really? Well, let’s see:
It’s Sunday around noonish. As the congregation files out of the sanctuary heading toward the parking lot, listen closely and you will hear it.
It’s a common refrain voiced near the exit doors of churches all across this land.
“I didn’t get anything out of that today.” “I didn’t get anything out of the sermon.” “I didn’t get anything out of that service.” “I guess her song was all right, but I didn’t get anything out of it.”
Sound familiar? Not only have I heard it countless times over these near-fifty years in the ministry, I probably have said it a few times myself.
This is like dry rot in a congregation. Like a termite infestation in the building. Like an epidemic afflicting the people of the Lord, one which we seem helpless to stop.
But let’s try. Let’s see if we can make a little difference where you and I live, in the churches where we serve and worship. We might not be able to help all of them, but if we bless one or two, it will have been time well spent.
No, it’s not helpless—it’s a leadership problem. The premise of DJ’s article is totally wrong. This article shouldn’t be addressed to parishioners; it should be addressed to pastors. The student looks like the teacher, that’s what Christ said, so if we change a few leaders—we change a bunch of parishioners, not just a few.
1. You are Not Supposed to ‘Get Anything Out of the Service’
Worship is not about you and me. Not about “getting our needs met.” Not about a performance from the pastor and singer and choir and musicians. Not in the least.
Stop right there. Again, the very premise of this article is in error. It targets the wrong audience, and it feeds a gargantuan misconception among contemporary Christians—the Sunday morning assembly is NOT primarily “worship”; that’s like calling an automobile a “hubcap.” The Lord said that we are to worship God in spirit and in TRUTH. Therefore, every time we tell somebody the truth—that’s worship. Every time we teach our children a correct biblical principle and how to apply it to their life—that’s worship. Furthermore, Christ prayed to the Father that we would be sanctified by the truth, and then he said, “Thy word is truth.” Our role in all of sanctification is worshiping God via truth. When we say a kind word to our wife—that’s worship. When we speak words properly fitted for the occasion—that’s worship. When we stop to help a broken-down motorist on the way to church—that’s worship (more so than the supposed “worship” SERVICE, as we call it). And by the way, if we confront parishioners that we hear talking that way (as DJ describes) when we’re leaving church—that’s worship too.
Moreover, this statement: “You are Not Supposed to ‘Get Anything Out of the Service’” is blatant biblical error. The apostle Paul made it clear to the Corinthians that EDIFICATION is one of the primary purposes of gathering together.
2. Worship is About the Lord
“Give unto the Lord the glory due to His name.” That Psalm 29:2 verse atop our article today is found also in I Chronicles 16:29 and Psalm 96:8. It deserves being looked at closely.
a) We are in church to give. Not to get.
Again, this is only half true, and if pastors teach their students how to worship during the week, they will know how to worship when they come to the Sunday morning assembly. Parishioners who don’t know how to worship on Sunday, don’t know how to worship on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday. But in this article, DJ offers “biblical” support for how Christians should do ‘Sunday worship.’ DJ doesn’t get it.
c) We do so because glory is His right. He is “worthy of worship.”
This is the theme of the final book of the Bible.
- “Who is worthy?” (Rev. 5:2)
- “You are worthy…for you were slain, and have redeemed us” (Rev. 5:9).
- “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain” (Rev. 5:12).
No it isn’t; worship is NOT the theme of Revelation—that’s utter nonsense. “The” (theme) is a definitive article, but there are many primary themes in Revelation. Grammatically, THE theme is, “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place.” And, “Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.” It amazes me how Christians readily accept anything that sounds good, as truth.
3. Self-centeredness Destroys All Worship
If my focus is on myself when I enter the church–getting my needs met, learning something, hearing a lesson that blesses me, being lifted by the singing–then Christ has no part in it. He becomes my servant, and the pastor (and all the other so-called performers) are there only for me. It’s all about me.
This is partially true, but the last thing you ever want to teach any Christian is that they shouldn’t come to church with LEARNING as one of their motives (later, he even writes, “learning the Word” as an example), and an expectation for the teachers of that church to deliver! In fact, husbands / fathers in particular have a duty before God to expect just that and nothing less. Furthermore, “self-centeredness” doesn’t destroy “all worship,” it creates opportunities for worship if the person is confronted and discipled. In fact, one of the specific purposes stated in Scripture for assembling together is not even discussed by DJ: “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching.”
We have strayed so far from the biblical concept of worship–giving God His due in all the ways He has commanded–it’s a wonder we keep going to church. And it’s an even greater wonder that our leaders keep trying to get us to worship.
The poor preacher! Trying to cater to the insatiable hungers of his people, even the best and most godly among them, is an impossible task. One week he gets it right and eats up the accolades. Then, about the time he thinks he has it figured out, the congregation walks out grumbling that they got nothing out of the meal he served today.
Note: supposedly, the parishioners are the problem. This mentality is not indicative of godly leadership. In an open forum where mid-week small groups were being discussed by a group of pastors, one said he was against small groups because they foster clicks. I suggested the following to the group in response: the possibly of that result is a leadership issue. All self-centeredness isn’t bad; hence, more pastors need to look in the mirror—some don’t even know what a biblical definition of worship is to begin with.
4. Evangelism & Discipleship, Giving & Praying, Grow Out of Worship; Not the Other Way Around
The disciples were worshiping on the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit filled them and drove them into the streets to bear a witness to the living Christ (Acts 2).
Isaiah was in the Temple worshiping when God appeared to him, forgave his sins, and called him as a prophet to the people (Isaiah 6).
It was in the act of worship that the two distraught disciples had their eyes opened to recognize Jesus at their table (Luke 24).
This is a leadership cliché that is presently in vogue in our day—that ALL doing flows from worship (ie., singing with hands in the air, self-depravation, etc., etc.). Again, worship is doing (whatever the doing is, including singing) and doing is worship (James 1:25,26, and especially 27)—the two cannot be separated unless done for wrong motives. Though the verses cited above have what DJ calls “worship” as first in order, these verses do not say: “All doing flows from worship.” That’s an assumption. Besides, just as many verses in Scripture reverse the order (for example, Philippians 4:8,9).
5. We are to Give Him Worship and Glory in the Ways Scripture Commands
I don’t take issue with this statement except for the following: he seems to limit “worship” to some kind of emotional experience—“The Lord Jesus told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well, ‘Those who worship God must worship in spirit and in truth’ (John 4:24). That is, with their inner being, the totality of themselves, their spirit, not just their lips or their bodies going through the motions.” Nevertheless, in regard to DJ’s point, if you go to a church where the music is taken from Favorite Funeral Songs of All Time, and the praise leaders are hyper-geriatric, how do you get the whole, “with [your] inner being, the totality of [yourselves], [your] spirit, not just [your] lips or [your] bodies going through the motions” thing going? He doesn’t say. These kind of nebulous truisms are the order of our day, and indicative of why instruction / teaching / doctrine cannot be dissected from worship.
No pastor can decide or dictate whether we will worship by the quality of his leadership or the power of his sermon. Whether I worship in today’s service has absolutely nothing to do with how well he does his job.
Common sense should tell one that this is a ridiculous statement. Especially this part: “Whether I worship in today’s service has absolutely nothing [emphasis mine] to do with how well he does his job.” If this is true, what do we need pastors for to begin with? Surely, if they are a “gift” from Christ to the church, they must be more important than that!
When Mary sat before the Lord Jesus, clearly worshiping, He informed a disgruntled Martha that her sister had “chosen the good part,” something that “will not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:42). That something special was time spent in worship. Such moments or hours are eternal.
Lest someone point out that Martha could have worshiped in her kitchen by her service for Christ, we do not argue, but simply point out that she was not doing so that day.
Mary was sitting at the feet of Jesus being TAUGHT. It was a teaching session. I thought DJ said people shouldn’t come to church with an expectation of being taught—which is it? DJ likens it to worship, soooo, I’m getting confused—but I guess that’s my fault!
Even if a church has no pastor and has to make do with a stuttering layman or some inept fill-in, I can still bow before the Lord, offer Him my praise, and give Him my all. I can humble before Him and I can bring my offering.
Offering? In that situation, explain, “offering.” It sounds good, but what in the world does DJ mean by that? In this article, we have seven things we get wrong about worship, but the fact that DJ doesn’t add corrective instruction is the hallmark of contemporary teachers. What, and maybe some why’s, but no how’s. The article made the readers feel good while saying, “amen!”—but what now?
Lastly, when one interacts with the Christian landscape around us, a constant flow of contradiction in music, speech, conduct, and wisdom is perceived when compared to the mind of Christ. Whatever happened to the Bible? Whatever happened to the light unto our path? Whatever happened to what makes us fully equipped for every good work? And whatever happened to the ability to apply biblical truth to real life?
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 6A: Horton’s Kinship With the Australian Forum Can be Seen in Frame’s Review
Let me continue to voice my appreciation for the information sent by readers; that’s what this network ministry is all about— cooperation in sharing information about New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology which are all the same thing, and hereafter: NCGSS. Information sent yesterday is the subject of this post.
This particular series is exploring the possibility that New Calvinism was born from the Australian Forum. A working hypothesis chart can be viewed in part 2 of this series
( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ); Horton’s place in the theoretical history can be seen on the chart. One thing thus far is certain: the doctrines are identical. Furthermore, both movements show the same motives, and both claim to have returned to Reformed / Puritan doctrine—this is the same dominate theme / staple of both movements. Also, there is reason to believe that New Covenant Theology was conceived from Jon Zens’ association with the Forum, and he also shared their desire to find middle ground between difficult doctrines.
As I noted previously, the Australian Forum Three were Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead and the Forum were trying to reform SDA, the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings. In fact, Paxton was infatuated with Adventist theology and lost a teaching position because of his association with the AF. Paxton and Brinsmead also shared a rabid distaste for Charismatic theology (they would not be pleased with New Calvinism’s inclusion of Charismatics). Goldsworthy’s motives for being involved with the AF are yet unclear, but the fact that he is oftentimes quoted by New Calvinist (hereafter NC) is no accident.
The subject of this post is John Frame’s review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” sent to me by a reader. The review is full of painstaking discernment. This kind of discipline in sorting through the mystical theological world of Michael Horton is very commendable. Frame also mentions what I call Horton’s Kerryisms: “I was for it before I was against it.” Or, “I know I said ‘A,’ but let me clarify so you poor spiritual peasants don’t misunderstand my theological brilliance: I only said ‘A’ in a manner of speaking, unless you agree with ‘A.’ If you agree, I really said it, but if you disagree, I was only saying ‘A’ in a manner of speaking.”
As I was reading Frames’ review—I saw AF footprints everywhere. I will be pointing to that relationship, using Frames review while mentioning other residual issues related to NC.
Frame opens his review this way:
The title of this book is alarming, certainly by design. But the subtitle is even more so. Does it mean that the whole American church (all traditions, denominations, locations) is committed to an “alternative Gospel?” Or is it that, though part of the American church upholds the true, biblical gospel, there is within that church a movement (evidently a significant movement) to the contrary?
John, Horton is what we call a New Calvinist. They hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. As implied by the title, we are supposedly sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. In other words, we are sanctified by justification, and the contemplation thereof. As John Piper says, “beholding as a way of becoming.” John: yes! Yes! Yes! They believe anything short of monergistic substitutionary sanctification is a false gospel. That’s why Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” Listen very carefully to Piper’s “6 Minute Gospel” video on the internet as he calls for Evangelicals everywhere who believe in our efforts in sanctification to be saved from works salvation. It’s why Tullian Tchividjian said the following:
“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. But I’ve come to realize that the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth. As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day.”
These guys believe that God is using them to reform another Dark Age of distinctions between justification and sanctification. They are also very resentful—they believe that Evangelicalism has sold the church a bill of goods about salvation. This attitude can be seen in the many hostile ministry takeovers playing out across this country (of which are finally being spoken of by Ovadal, Hamilton, and others). A good example is Coral Ridge. This mentality is also identical to that of the AF Three. A good thumbnail of this doctrine / mentality can be read in Horton’s Christless Christianity:
“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.”
NO ONE has yet demanded that Horton explain this statement. And this is fact: any statement made by NC proponents that seems to contradict this statement is just that—seemingly at odds. Furthermore, in many NC Reformed Baptist churches, they practice what is called “Redemptive Church Disciple.” When a parishioner is caught in a sin, the discipline doesn’t address the sin, it focuses on the supposed fundamental problem of how the “vast majority” of evangelicals understand the gospel. Therefore, the discipline focuses on “redemption.” The sin is supposedly a mere symptom of a false gospel. Hence, the discipline focuses on converting the individual from orthodox Evangelicalism to Gospel Sanctification. The discipline goes from step to step as the victim refuses to “repent” from synergistic sanctification to a monergistic substitutionary form. Moreover, as unsuspecting evangelical married couples join Reformed churches; one spouse in a marriage may come to believe the doctrine while the other spouse doesn’t. The marriage is then deemed a mixed marriage (believer / unbeliever) by the NC leadership. I have firsthand knowledge of this, and it is one of many in regard to the dirty little secrets of NC.
What are these subtle distortions? Evidently, what Horton is concerned with is an emphasis. The metaphors of “looking away from” Christ and putting something else on “center stage” have to do with the emphasis we put on Christ.
Right. Horton got this from the AF. Though Horton or the AF affirm many tenets of orthodoxy, they also say that the tenets are irrelevant for all practical purposes. Why? Because they eclipse Christ. To talk about it is to NOT talk about Christ; therefore, “it” is error. So, truthful orthodoxy is true as long as you don’t talk about it—unless you talk about “it” in it’s Christocentric context or it’s gospel context, Or it’s context in regard to justification, or it’s context in regard to what Jesus did—not anything we do. Likewise, that is how the movement denies that we are the subjects of biblical imperatives—because “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
This is also how the AF and Horton both deny the “new birth,” or the belief that Christians are born again despite what is plainly stated in Scripture. Unless the new birth can be framed in a Christocentric context that completely eliminates us from consideration—it’s error. As long as you don’t talk about it—it’s truth, so if anyone calls them on it—they simply say that “emphasis” is the issue, not a denial of the new birth. Let me further elaborate. I wrote the following in part 4:
“This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF Three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article…. Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
‘Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. 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.1’”
The footnote in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, ‘The False Gospel of the New Birth,’ Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, ‘We [“we” being the AF Three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth….’ he then continues to write, ‘Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.’”
So, the new birth is false because, “it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root.” Therefore, unless the new birth is taught without considering saintly ramifications, it eclipses Christ and becomes a false doctrine. Horton reflected this exact same maniacal approach to the new birth in: “In the Face of God.” I will now compare Paxton’s summary quote from the aforementioned article and a quote from Horton in the book I just mentioned:
Paxton: “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.”
Horton: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own’ Spirit-filled’ life?”
The above discussion casts some light on another theme of this book, one which Horton develops in many of his writings. Horton often emphasizes his view that the gospel focuses (again, note the relative term) on the “outer” rather than the “inner,” what happens outside of us, rather than what happens within us, the objective rather than the subjective. He quotes Goldsworthy,
“The pivotal point of turning in evangelical thinking which demands close attention is the change that has taken place from the Protestant emphasis on the objective facts of the gospel in history, to the medieval emphasis on the inner life. The evangelical who sees the inward transforming work of the Spirit as the key element of Christianity will soon lose contact with the historic faith and the historic gospel “(152).
Again, Horton gets this from the AF. And therefore, the quote by Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three, should come as no surprise. The AF wrote no less than 103 articles on this subject. Here is one excerpt:
“The tendency of human nature is to make the subjective aspect of Christianity the focal point of concern. This is what happened in the early church. It lost sight of the great Pauline message of justification by God’s work outside of man. Even in the teachings of the fathers of the post-apostolic church, the objective truth of justification by faith held no prominent place. More and more the church began to focus on the experience of sanctification. Indeed, justification came to be looked upon only as an initiating step at the beginning of the Christian’s life; the mighty Pauline truth about justification was subordinated to what was thought to be the higher blessing of sanctification. The focus of attention was away from the gospel to the fruit of the gospel, away from Christ’s experience to Christian experience, away from the objective to the subjective.”
This second excerpt shows why this subject was core to the AF doctrine:
“The medieval thought was man-centered, experience-centered, and subjective. The Reformation thought was Christ-centered, cross-centered, and objective.”
In these two statements from the AF—we see one of the core elements that NCGSS proponents believe connects them to the Reformation. Arrogantly, they believe that Pauline doctrine on justification was lost twice: once following the Apostolic Age; and again after the Reformation ignited by Martin Luther. Let there be no doubt—New Calvinist believe that they are the cutting edge of the second Reformation in Redemptive History, and they are taking no prisoners.
paul
A Little Uptight and In the Fight
A visitor of PPT sent me a mp3 link the other day. It was a recording of The Heart of the Matter Programwith Pastor Ralph Ovadal—Ovadal pastors Pilgrims Covenant Church in Madison, Wisconsin.
Let me be clear: after researching these two churches; would I attend / join either? Answer: Yes, I would give up my NASB, Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Kutless, and Sunday jeans for SANITY. That’s what the present-day Evangelical landscape is right now—pure insanity. Most leaders whom I used to respect have certainly lost their minds. Extremism Light is looking pretty good to me right now.
That aside, the recording is a lengthy and decent evaluation of New Calvinism. In regard to their complaint along with Dr. Peter Masters that New Calvinism is worldly—that’s true by any sane person’s estimation. The pastors reiterate instances of absurd behavior by some of the more well known leaders in the movement. They also talk about well documented, over the top compromise by the who’s who of the Evangelical world, especially John MacArthur Jr. They are obviously not impressed with the stature of men—calling John Piper, “dangerous.”
Moreover, their doctrinal contentions hit the mark. They note the movement’s distortion of justification and sanctification, and Hamilton calls out the movement for being antinomian.
Here is the link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=1022101212210
paul
Since All Truth is God’s Truth—Some Awesome Quotes For Pastors and SS Teachers
It may be that today gold has become the exclusive ruler of life, but the time will come when man will again bow down before a higher god.
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 2
The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.
– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf Vol. 2 Chapter 10
I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker.
– Adolf Hitler, Speech, March 15, 1936, Munich, Germany
What do you mean you aren’t going to use them?!! Why not? Maybe because quoting people is to lend creditability to them? C’mon, lighten up—after all, you don’t agree with everything Hitler taught—right? Aren’t these good quotes? So, they’re God’s truth—right?
paul
5 comments