Why Jay Adams Had to be Neutralized by the New Calvinists
Originally posted March 11, 2012
Susan and I had a glorious fellowship with another Christian couple this afternoon. They are in a ministry of significant influence and will be unnamed. At some point, the conversation turned to New Calvinism. As Susan and I sat and listened to the husband’s testimony concerning what he valued in John Piper’s teachings, I was filled with an understanding in regard to why Piper’s teachings are so attractive. I might add that I was very impressed with his calm, articulate answer immediately following my comment that I believe Piper to be one of the premier heretics of our day.
What this brother described was the fact that serious Christians were looking for an alternative to the fallout from the first gospel wave in contemporary Christian History: raise your hand, sign a card, don’t drink, smoke, chew, or hang out with girls that do. Christianity had been reduced to living by a list of do’s and don’ts by people who didn’t have any life to show for it. Fair enough. Guilty as charged.
But the fact of the matter is that Jay Adams did offer a viable alternative. It was based on hearing the word of God and applying it to our lives according to the whole counsel of God’s wisdom and not just, “stop doing that.” I saw firsthand how this “first generation” biblical counseling movement changed lives in radical fashion, including my own. And the movement continues to do so today even though the fact of that matter is covered up by a whole lot of New Calvinist noise.
To me the crux of the matter is in this brother’s testimony. New Calvinists have effectively sold the idea that they are offering the only alternative to easy believeism in our day. That’s only true because they got rid of the other alternative through slander and persecution, and they know it. Jay Adams’ “first generation” biblical counseling was a threat to the emerging New Calvinist tsunami. Why? 1) Because it worked and God used it to change lives. 2) It was/is the antithesis of New Calvinism because the latter fuses justification and sanctification while first generation counseling doesn’t. Furthermore, this is what New Calvinist David Powlison said was the fundamental difference between the two while teaching at John Piper’s church:
This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that.
If we associate justification with “conversion,” and we do, Powlison’s statement can be reworded as follows for clarification:
Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for justification (justification cannot be separated from conversion). And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification.
Second generation counseling/New Calvinism is sanctification by justification, and that was also propagated by his mentor that he mentions. New Calvinists choose their words carefully. Imagine how far the movement would get if they didn’t replace “justification” with “gospel”:
The same finished work of justification that saved you also sanctifies you. Or, we must preach justification to ourselves every day. Or, sanctification is the finished work of justification in action.
I explained to the brother that the other alternative was relentlessly persecuted, and that’s why it would seem that there is only one alternative. He concurred that he perceives criticism of Adams taking place on a continual basis. Why? Because the truth he teaches is the competition. It’s a threat.
This is an approach that I have never used before: 1) Powlison admits a fundamental difference between first generation and second generation counseling; ie, sanctification by the cross (justification) verses sanctification by the Spirit apart from the finished work of justification. 2) An alternative is confirmed. 3) You only have the New Calvinists’ testimony that they are the only alternative. 4) Why not investigate and find out for yourself?
He agreed, and was sent off with a copy of The Truth About New Calvinism. Please pray for the situation. Christianity doesn’t need a second gospel wave. The first wave devalued sanctification by focusing on justification only; the second devalues it as well by making it the same thing as justification. Both are just as deadly, and when the novelty of New Calvinism wears off, the results will be worse.
paul
What’s Really Behind Gun Control?
“Anti-gun liberals are not left-wing liberal loons by any stretch of the imagination; they are merely among the metaphysical mainstream of world history.”
Probably one of the most life changing experiences I have ever had was listening to John Immel during our first TANC conference. In one of his usual observations that give dignity to life and practical hope, he noted that people always do what they do for a reason—primarily their logic. Writing people off as “stupid” or mentally ill is lazy thinking; it’s a shortcut. Sure, we have all been driven nuts by the clamoring of liberals to do away with guns in the face of what would seem abundantly obvious: terrorism thrives on the concept of shooting fish in a barrel. And obviously, crime doesn’t pay if you don’t know who is packing and who isn’t. And as far as being invaded by another country, if the public is well armed, that’s just a huge problem for the invaders. “But they will just nuke us.” Probably not because invaders want your country’s stuff, and the stuff is no good if it’s burned up.
So what’s up with these annoying anti-gun nutballs? Once again, I must refer you to Immelism: it’s their presuppositions concerning mankind. In it’s most common denominator, it’s the total depravity of man. That’s just as much a secular concept as it is a religious concept. On this wise, the Socialist and the Protestant kiss. It’s the same old social caste song and dance that began in the cradle of civilization. In the beginning there was Socialism, and it has for the most part ruled the ages. In fact, after enough misery, mankind did not finally say “no” until the 17th century, and finally made the point with muskets in the 18th century resulting in a thing called “America.”
How does the secular/religious doctrine of total depravity work? A. The masses are unable to know reality; B. Some sort of higher power preordains mediators with special knowledge to rule over the masses in the material realm on behalf of the higher power; C. The mediators, who may in some religions actually be visiting avatars who work with additional human mediators, oversee an enforcement class of people who compel the masses to obey the mediators, usually by force. This can manifest itself in a number of different tri-fold applications with the application of government easily discerned in the mix. For examples, simply see “World History.” In regard to the often-heard reasonable concern by liberals that only the “qualified” should have guns for fear that the totally depraved will be constantly shooting themselves in the foot; yes, that would be the desire to see only the enforcer class having guns because they enforce the bidding of the seers.
Simply stated, you either have a government by the government that owns mankind on behalf of the higher powers, or a government by the people and for the people who own themselves, and are directly culpable to a higher power determined by themselves. Whatever that higher power may be, it is generally agreed that the freedom of man is self evident according to natural revelation, and subsequently, it can be said that man owns man, not the government. Why do many who obeyed governments find themselves on the long end of a short rope? Because of natural laws that are self evident to all men. See “America.”
Anti-gun liberals are not left-wing liberal loons by any stretch of the imagination; they are merely among the metaphysical mainstream of world history. Government cannot own mankind if mankind is well armed. The first step to government owning man, of course, for his own good (sarcasm), is disarming mankind by any means possible. Set against this first step is the universal angst among the tyranny of seers: “If only everybody would obey us, and by force if necessary, the world would be at peace!” Only problem is, the tyrants don’t always agree because they have different higher powers. See “The History of Warfare.”
Liberal commentators don’t think you are stupid like you think they are stupid, they just think you can’t understand reality. What is self evident isn’t reality, they have the higher knowledge. If only you would humble yourself and not rely on your own understanding, utopia could be realized. And they don’t want to destroy America by any means, they want her resources so they can destroy the other mediators who worship the wrong powers of their own imaginations.
And of course, they know best, so that’s when you have the right to bear arms—to do their murderous bidding.
paul
John MacArthur’s Utterly Delusional Assessment of Roman Catholicism, Part 3
The Protestant Pot Calling the Catholic Kettle Black
Friday night fun with Paul and Susan @ 6pm live (12/4/2015). call in and talk to the hosts: 347-855-8317. The live link follows:
Tonight @ 6pm: The Protestant Pot Calling the Catholic Kettle Black
Paul and Susan have been evaluating a sermon preached by John MacArthur Jr. in 2005 against Roman Catholicism. However, tonight they will use a different article to aid in further evaluation. The link follows:
OK Then, Should We Forgive Ourselves Whether We Repent or Not?
My articles on forgiveness usually spur some debate, not so much here at PPT, but via email and Facebook. I have come to understand most folks are afraid to show themselves here at PPT which is totally understandable as we are heterodox and giddy about being so. Furthermore, we know for certain that some churches have ordered their congregants not to come here upon pain of church discipline. Susan has suggested that this might be the case more and more as PPT and TANC Ministries improve our articulation of the issues.
The ruckus centers around the idea that we only forgive people if they repent. And we are to be angry without sin, meaning that we leave the revenge to God—He will repay. This also means we do the loving thing when we are presented with an opportunity to get revenge. If we stumble across our enemy’s lost oxen in the wilderness, we take it back to him. In doing so, perhaps the enemy realizes that he didn’t treat you the same way he would have wanted to be treated initially.
It also means that we do not fellowship with the unrepentant until they repent, and in addition, professing Christians who refuse to repent, and others who refuse to forgive when repentance is offered, are to be treated like unbelievers. The popular contrast to this position is blank check forgiveness. We are obligated to forgive all whether they repent or not…“the same way we were forgiven” which requires repentance. Don’t even try to go there – Protestants are completely comfortable with these kinds of contradictions.
Let’s be clear. I have no particular beef with the video below, but merely present it as food for thought. In the video, the person presents the issue of forgiving ourselves. You may agree or disagree that forgiving one’s self is a biblical concept to begin with, but for now, the point made in the video is that if God forgives us, we should forgive ourselves, or he won’t forgive us (an interesting twist), and the key to forgiving ourselves is confession. The author of the video cites 1John 1:9 as a proof text.
Let’s consider what we are talking about when we say that we should forgive ourselves; we are saying we need to clear our conscience. Ultimately, self condemnation comes from the conscience. James stated in his letter to the twelve tribes of Israel that if we confess our sins to each other we will be healed. Often, when fugitives are finally caught, they express relief because a heavy burden is taken off of their souls. Funny, we often hear that we should offer blank check forgiveness to others for our own good, not theirs, but the Bible makes it clear that the unrepentant are the ones who are destroyed. If someone comes to us and asks for forgiveness, we too often find ourselves saying, “Oh, that’s OK, I already forgave you.” To the contrary, it is hardly OK if that person needed to confess for their own good and relationship with God.
Let’s not move too quickly from “It’s OK, I already forgave you.” I argued in my last post that blank check forgiveness circumvents the need for repentance and this makes the point. Where is the strong emphasis (as in the Bible) on people needing to repent for their own good? Instead, by far, the emphasis is on forgiving others whether they repent or not lest we be destroyed…supposedly. If you offended someone and were not convicted about it, would you want them to forgive you any way? Would that be best for you?
In the final analysis you can reject the premise of my argument if you reject the premise of people needing to forgive themselves, but if you don’t, how can you extend forgiveness to yourself without repentance? And obviously, if you can’t forgive yourself without repentance, nor can you forgive others without their repentance. But, self forgiveness has merit because it is your own conscience that is condemning you, and in that case, you need to forgive the other person for your own good, and that would be you because you repented.
paul
Church-22: The Fallacy, Irrelevancy, and Tyranny of Biblical Authority and Divine Inspiration of Scripture
Thoughts on the Bible and Authority.
Recently I received the following question from a reader (see quote below). I spent a few days mulling it over before I responded, and when I did, my comment, as usual, became so long and involved that when finished it resembled more an article than a comment . So, I decided the rational thing to do was to post it as such.
Indulge me a few words as an introduction first.
Heretofore, I have not yet dealt (not sufficiently, in my mind) with the question of how I, personally, integrate the Bible into my philosophy and ideas–a notion about as scandalous as it gets to Christians…for who am I to apply Biblical ideas to my beliefs, and not the other way around?
Anyway…
As a believer (I am no longer comfortable calling myself “Christian”, due to the Protestant and Catholic doctrinal assumptions this label necessarily implies nowadays), it is important…
View original post 1,852 more words
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment