Southwood Situation Begs the Question: Why Do We Need the Presbytery?
It’s bittersweet. On the one hand, it’s refreshing to see everyday parishioners taking a hard stand for the truth. On the other, war is never pretty. Ironically, the book, The Truth War by John MacArthur Jr. (written when he still had his right mind), has probably influenced me more than any other book I have ever read other than the Bible. In fact, I wonder how much of that book has influenced what I am presently doing. Certainly, Southwood parishioners have taken such call to action seriously.
While perusing the website they have constructed, the lightbulb went on. If the laity must stand for the truth on their own, research the truth on their own, and execute the truth on their own, what do we need the present-day presbytery for? No matter the denomination, what do they do other than take our money and use it to spread false doctrine?
One of the visions of The Coalition Against New Calvinism is a forum that will produce a shovel-ready church polity. This is because in many cities, New Calvinism is the only option for church—it’s all there is. This is the reality because leaders of our day are not taking care of truth business.
I had lunch with a pastor the other day who thinks the laity is fed-up, and he thinks a movement by the laity may emerge; ie., home churches with lay pastors etc. No doubt, that’s inevitable unless things change.
paul
“Pastor” Mark Dever’s “Trademark Cross”
Dear Sir,
Matt Schmucker
Matt Schmucker
525 A Street NE | Washington, DC 20002
_______________________________________________________________
Dear Matt,
I have contemplated [no pun intended] your email and have sorted through many thoughts in regard to it. I have also consulted the coalition. A decision has been made.
My first thought was Peter’s imperative to obey every ordinance of man; and the fact is, T4G has copyrighted an image of our Lord’s gospel and paid good money for it to maximize marketing effect. Since I am not a New Calvinist, I will go ahead and “leap from the imperative to the command” without contemplating the indicative first. I hope that’s ok with you.
Another consideration was the fact that you could sue me because after I gave my life to Christ, I moved beyond the cross and shared it with other people only, and have not preached the gospel to myself every day. And as your friend Michael Horton has said, if we are saved by the gospel, “and move on to something else” we lose sanctification and justification both (Christless Christianity p.62). So, it wouldn’t be like taking another believer to court, right? Or is that to be taken literally? Does that mean the same thing in its “gospel context”?
However, since New Calvinists believe that any sin is fodder for church discipline (like non-attendance x256), and have authority over anyone who says “that Jesus is the Christ,” it occurred to me that Capitol Hill’s elders could bring me up on church discipline for believing a false gospel. Is that why you guys call it “redemptive church discipline”? And with the authority to declare me an unbeliever whether I am or not, well geez, that’s really scary. I bet you guys have a tight ship around there.
Now Matt, is this the first step of church discipline? I’m repenting, but do I have to get elder approval on that? Let me know.
Earnestly contending for the faith once delivered to the saints,
Paul M. Dohse Sr.
________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir, You have presumed much in your email like who my friends are and whether or not I have contemplated a lawsuit. I mentioned none of that and have simply asked you to stop using a design that you did not pay for and is trademark protected. Will you stop using it or not? I think that requires a simple answer, sir. I would appreciate a timely response. Sincerely, Matt Schmucker * * * * *Matt Schmucker** *Vice President, Together for the Gospel 525 A Street NE | Washington, DC 20002 ___________________________________________________________________________ Matt, You can call me "Paul." However, I commend you for respecting the elderly. You misunderstand, I said, "I'm repenting." I wasn't talking about "deep repentance" which would take a long time. Please interpret my email literally. We have changed the "logo." We have "repented." Not "deep repentance," I have no idea what "species of idol" caused me to do what I did. For crying out loud, it took John Piper eight months to find his. I have honored your request, but on the other hand, since I didn't do it the way David Powlison teaches, this change of heart may not be "real and lasting change." Maybe you could have him email me to give some advice on "reorienting the desires of my heart" [Matt, if you read this here, have him suggest which "X-Ray" questions I should ask myself as well]. Geez Matt, cut me a break, I'm tryin' to do the work here! I'm trying to "get used to my sanctification." paul
New Calvinism’s Onslaught Against the Plain Sense of Scripture: Romans 15:14-22
Romans 15:14-21 is yet another portion of Scripture that exposes several different New Calvinist errors within eight verses or less. This is indicative of the fact that New Calvinism is saturated with error.
Verse 14 is a glaring contradiction to the often heard rants by New Calvinists that the saints are totally depraved. The apostle Paul states the following in verse 14:
I myself am convinced, my brothers and sisters, that you yourselves are full of goodness, filled with knowledge and competent to instruct one another.
I honestly cannot think of any statement that could contradict New Calvinism more than this statement by the apostle. Another contradiction in the same verse is Paul’s emphasis on counseling (noutheteho) each other. The idea is that we are to warn each other, instruct each other, remind each other, reprove each other, etc. A far cry from preaching the gospel to ourselves and supposedly teaching others to do the same. Counseling involves far more than having knowledge of the gospel.
Paul continues in verse 15:
I have written you quite boldly on some points to remind you of them again, because of the grace God gave me….
“Some points”? What points? Why wouldn’t he want to continually remind them of the gospel? The same question is begged of 2Peter, chapter 1 where Peter reminds them of seven things, excluding the gospel.
Verse 16:
….to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles. He gave me the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.
Paul now shifts the subject to his primary ministry as an apostle: to lead Gentiles to the Lord. Notice his emphasis on all three members of the Trinity in regard to the gospel; “a minister of Jesus Christ”; the “gospel of God,” and the “sanctification by the Holy Spirit.” The strong emphasis on Christ alone in salvation is predominant in New Calvinism.
Verses 17-19:
Therefore I glory in Christ Jesus in my service to God. 18 I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— 19 by the power of signs and wonders, through the power of the Spirit of God. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ.
Notice Paul writes that “what I have said and done” played a role in Gentiles coming to Christ. What about the following New Calvinist claim?—being a testimony is an attempt to “be the gospel rather than sharing the gospel.”
Verses 20-22:
It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.
This is why we call the gospel “good news” and why Paul wanted to preach where Christ was NOT KNOWN. You see, once people hear the good news, it’s no longer news! This would seem evident. Also, Paul saw the gospel as a FOUNDATION, and because God didn’t want to continue to build on a foundation that had already been laid, “I have often been hindered from coming to you.”
- The total depravity of the saints is contradicted.
- Lack of emphasis on counseling/instruction is contradicted.
- The continual reminding of the gospel is contradicted.
- The devaluing of God and the Holy Spirit in salvation is contradicted.
- The devaluing of godly behavior in presenting the gospel is contradicted.
- The good news as perpetual news is contradicted.
- The continual building of the gospel foundation is contradicted.
paul
Another Open Letter to Fellow Southern Baptist Peter Lumpkins
“Let me put it in perspective for you Peter: imagine Mark Driscoll as president of the SBC and CJ Mahaney as president of Southern Seminary.”
Sent by email on 2/13/2012:
Peter,
Greetings. I hope this email finds you well my friend. I saw your article about “aggressive Calvinism” (aka New Calvinism) and how they are partaking in hostile takeovers of Southern Baptist churches. Your complaint is that they are not upfront going in about what their theology is. Their less than full disclosure doesn’t include the fact that what they believe has the name “Calvinist” in it for fear that they would be rejected out of hand. Poor souls are therefore deceived into attaining a pastor who is a New Calvinist, and in the same kind of situation, is why Hillary Clinton looks so good to us right now after the real Barak Obama has been revealed. I can tell you about a Presbyterian church in Alabama who would love to have a real Calvinist running the show right now.
As stated in my addendum (“The Southern Baptist Connection”) to The Truth About New Calvinism, this organized, hostile takeover has been in full swing since the early 80’s. Al Mohler and company probably distance themselves from Founders Ministries because they are only one step removed from the connection to The Australian Forum. New Calvinism is based on the doctrine that came from the Forum, which believed they had recovered the original Reformation gospel. It is my contention that a former Presbyterian and founder of Founders Ministries became a Southern Baptist for the sole purpose of bringing this “new reformation” into the SBC. Covertly, using the name of a famous Southern Baptist who would have been horrified by their doctrine.
New Calvinism is ecumenical because all that matters is an acclamation to the Forum’s, the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Everything else is secondary because real and lasting transformation only comes from Gospel Contemplationism anyway. Supposedly. Certainly, I do not have to make a case for this as the inclusion of everything but the kitchen sink is apparent in T4G, and the Together for the Gospel crowd.
Though they pretend to oppose the emergent church movement, they approach the Scriptures in the exact same way: the Scriptures are a historical gospel narrative that we put our life story into. New Calvinists believe that is mostly done through contemplation—emergent folks believe that is done primarily through taking action and participating in the narrative, often bringing a charge of works salvation from the other side because it is working in the narrative verses contemplating it. But both believe that the Scriptures are an exclusive personal narrative about Christ, and therefore, drawing propositional truth/cognitive principles from it for purposes of life application is an inappropriate use of the Scriptures. In a shocking display of diss-discernment, MacArthur masterfully articulates this complaint against the emergent church while at the same time describing the same approach that his newfound New Calvinist pals hold to (The Truth War pages 13-22; also see How People Change by Paul David Tripp, page 27).
In fact, MacArthur targets John H. Armstrong specifically on those pages in Truth War, who was also one of the movers and shakers in the movement that created Founders Ministries! Come now Peter, look at Acts 29’s involvement with Southern Baptist churches. It’s not only emergent, but was spawned by the spiritual children of Dr. John “Jack” Miller, the father of Sonship Theology that is founded on the Forum’s doctrine.
Which brings me to the name change being proposed in SBC circles. That spells certain death for the SBC—it is part of the plan. Removing “Baptist” from our name paves the way for Charismatics, Emergents, Seventh-day Adventists, you name it to be involved in the everyday activities of the SBC. Let me put it in perspective for you Peter: imagine Mark Driscoll as president of the SBC and CJ Mahaney as president of Southern Seminary.
Peter, it’s gut-check time for Southern Baptist. I have a meeting with my pastor this afternoon. Should our church continue to contribute to the Cooperative Fund which is well on its way to being taken over by spiritual misfits?
Not in my book.
paul
A Passing Thought About New Calvinism’s “Grace and Mercy” Expertise
From time to time, I post comments from our humble, ever repentant, New Calvinist friends. From time to time, these folks stop by here to warn me of my “abusive language.” Here is an example of one of their rebukes that came last night. This one is from Canada where New Calvinism is spreading like a wildfire:
Submitted on 2012/02/12 at 11:20 pm
Perhaps you might consider changing the name of your blog to “Paul’s Passing Gas” . . . because it appears that most of the foul, hot-air that you produce here is being blown out yer ass.
leave a comment