Neo-Evangelicalism: A Good Friend of New Calvinism
“In fact, what better example of Neo-evangelicalism is there in our day than the Resolved conferences? MacArthur has appeared on stage with Mahaney at every Resolved Conference since its conception in 2005, and shockingly, even after the recent controversies surrounding Mahaney, will appear with him again in 2012!”
I like to peruse used book stores and look at what was written in earlier years. I bought a book by Charles Woodbridge published in 1969 entitled “The New Evangelicalism.” Funny, I no more than put the book down after finishing it to check my email and saw that I was sent a link to an article written by a friend of Charles Spurgeon, Scottish pastor John Kennedy. An excerpt:
The essay here reprinted appeared in 1874 in the wake of an evangelistic campaign by Dwight L. Moody and Ira D. Sankey, whose 1873 tour wrought a revolution of sentiment in Scotland. Scottish pastors, wishing to think the best, and inattentive to the new trends of thought and practice, were caught up in the swell of excitement. Though Kennedy was temperamentally disinclined to controversy, he was constrained to raise his voice for a full-orbed proclamation of the biblical gospel.
What was the crux of Neo-evangelicalism according to Woodbridge? Separation verses infiltration. Supposedly, more people get saved if they don’t perceive divisions among Christians. Kennedy bemoaned the fact that Scottish pastors embraced Moody revivalism at face value. Supposedly, cooperation furthers the kingdom. Neo-evangelicalism called for a tolerance for anything that called itself “Christian.” The clear biblical mandate for utilizing God’s work in separation was dismissed for “love and unity” and a “humbleness that is teachable.”
The outcry against Neo-evangelicalism was ignored, paving a wide road for destructive doctrines like New Calvinism in our day. Tolerance for blatant error and New Calvinism certainly go hand in hand. Neo-evangelicalism has made stalwarts like John MacArthur little more than hypocrites. Of course, the prime example is the invitation to CJ Mahaney to speak at a Resolved Conference after writing “Charismatic Chaos.” John Piper worshipper Justin Taylor applauded the contradiction. In fact, what better example of Neo-evangelicalism is there in our day than the Resolved conferences? MacArthur has appeared on stage with Mahaney at every Resolved Conference since its conception in 2005, and shockingly, even after the recent controversies surrounding Mahaney, will appear with him again in 2012! What happened to MacArthur’s supposed conviction that elders are to be “beyond reproach”? And I emphasize “supposed” convictions.
Another mantra of our day that finds roots in Neo-evangelicalism is certainly, “All truth is God’s truth.” Supposedly, there is wisdom in turning over every flat rock laying upon the Earth to find some truth God might have hidden underneath. Every book list is a good list, just “eat the chicken and throw out the bones.” “Take off the shelf what is good and leave the rest there.” Of course, books written by Adolf Hitler, who said agreeable things, is conspicuously missing from the list. Presently, that is.
Woodridge aptly points out in the book that separation is the key to protecting the truth and leading violators to repentance (Romans 16:17). This is Christianity 101. Just last night, a pastor shared with me how the separation of an individual from their church membership led to his repentance and the salvation of his live-in girlfriend, with appropriate actions following. Go figure. In another case I recently heard about, an individual who was only shunned by a small segment of his extended Christian family ran into a life shattering circumstance. Guess who he went to for counsel? Right, the small segment. Something made him think they took truth seriously. The counsel resulted in him giving his life to the Lord.
Woodbridge pointed out that it is supposedly unity for the sake of the gospel. Same deal today. New Calvinists believe that all truth is secondary to what they call “the gospel” and not worth fighting over. In MacArthur’s mind, “chaos” in the lives of God’s people is acceptable because that’s a sanctification thing. He is now part of the, “Beholding as a way of becoming” crowd.
paul
Not Knowing Tullian Tchividjian Saved My Life
A reader sent me the latest post by Tullian Tchividjian. Go figure, he wasn’t able to pass on criticizing a concept that involves the possible use of verbs: New Year Resolutions. Susan and I had just finished working on a resolution of our own to begin the new year. We were not excited to partake in the endeavor. We knew it would reveal the necessity to make hard choices together. It was difficult not to focus on that rather than the glory that could be brought to God through the process. Afterward, while somewhat moody about the task, I checked my email, clicked on the link, and read it. So, hide the children.
Tullian Tchividjian is an icon among the Young, Reckless, and Rebellious that are presently tormenting the church. His followers are those who the apostle Paul said would come in the last days with itching ears—wanting to hear that the Christian life is a “mere natural flow.” According to Tchividjian, the acid test for determining if you are preaching the true gospel is to be accused of antinomianism. And while many of this bunch applauded the Queen of Anomia, Elyse Fitzpatrick, for stating that there is no such thing as antinomianism, others like New Calvinist/Super Yuppie Dane Ortlund claim that the apostle Paul was accused of being one; so hence, it is their goal as well. Even more detestable is the way that library theologians like John MacArthur lend credibility to these enemies of righteousness. In his ignorant ramblings about how the Young, Restless, and Reformed need to “grow up and keep reforming,” he is stupidly incredulous that antinomians are acting like antinomians.
And their arrogance is without boundary, having reverence for nothing but their own visions of grandeur. For example: yes, I realize that Dietrich Bonhoeffer had some issues in regard to orthodoxy, but I won’t even go there. Why? Because he left a cushy ministry in the States to take a stand against Nazism in Germany. He observed that like the pastors of this day, they wouldn’t take a stand in Germany, but rather emphasized the positive of what Hitler had to offer. Bonhoeffer was eventually hanged while naked with piano wire. But as ones who talk like those who have taken off their armor before putting it on and standing before the razor thin noose, they constantly rag on him for saying things like, “ One act of obedience is better than one hundred sermons.” Another example that is almost equally disgusting is the book written by the pretentious and puerile Heath Lambert, passing judgment on the likes of Jay Adams. If the book is ever produced in audio, it would be an excellent complement to ventriloquist David Powlison.
And of course, Tchividjian wasted no time speaking for Susan and me regarding our New Year Resolution for the Lord. His message? Like all things that we try to do for the lord, it will fail. And gee whiz, isn’t it great that our acceptance before the Lord doesn’t depend on our performance?
I have some theological news for this vile antinomian and his fiend friend that sent him the quote that he thought was so special. That would be the friend who delights (like all New Calvinists) in bringing elderly saints up on bogus church discipline (I told you to hide the children. I am fed-up with this bunch and the cowards that cover for them). Here is the news flash: Susan and I don’t claim to be the brightest bulbs in the house, but we know at least this much; we cannot do anything to gain favor with God for purposes of justification. That’s impossible because He chose us to be completely justified before the Earth was created. Therefore, He also chose us, and the guaranteed result is glorification at a time of His choosing and good pleasure. Susan and I believe this with all of our hearts and it is the basis of this belief that gives us assurance of our salvation. But unlike these brute beasts, Susan and I have a King that we want to please for many reasons—reasons that He states, not mere men. We long to stand before Him and hear, “Well done, faithful servant.” And guess what? We actually believe He is talking about what we actually do. Excuuuuuse us for taking that literally and not embracing Tchividjian’s Gnostic-like approach to the Scriptures (also known as Redemptive Historical hermeneutics).
But what really torques me off about these men is their HOPELESS message. When I went to a biblical counselor some twenty-four years ago in the midst of a serious trial, I was a New Calvinist before New Calvinism was cool. I read Scripture and prayed for hours “seeking the Lord’s face.” In 1994, MacArthur explained what that means; in essence he said, “We don’t really mean like, you know, looking for a face in the Scriptures like something mystical. We mean like, you know, looking for Jesus in the Scriptures.” Ya, got it, except for the part about what Jesus SAYS, not what he looks like. MacArthur seems to have bought into the New Calvinist hermeneutic that is primarily concerned with who Jesus is as a “person.” It’s almost as if none of them can wait to meet Jesus face to face so they can ask him what His sign is and His favorite color. “Is fish really your favorite food? Or was it because that was the staple food of the day?” Oh to know who Jesus really is! The perfect complement is Francis Chan’s Jesus is my boyfriend theology. Meanwhile, Steve Camp and others have no clue where all of the Jesus is my boyfriend music comes from that they constantly lament. Antinomians acting like antinomians and those seeking to fall in love with Jesus singing Jesus is my boyfriend music, and no one is apparently able to connect the dots. What in the world is going on?
Thank goodness my counselor wasn’t Tchividjian . And thank goodness my counselor had not yet become the president of an evil empire. He told me that I could actually do something about my problem; specifically, what the Lord instructs. “Oh, you mean nothing’s happening because Jesus also wants me to do things? “ Profound.
This ministry is a witness to how New Calvinists counsel: “We are helpless creatures who have this treasure of Jesus in clay vessels. Embrace the pounding of the trial as it breaks apart these vessels of clay and allows the glory of Jesus to shine out!” Meanwhile, New Calvinists play on the results of an existing epidemic of our day: Christians functioning on biblical generalities and trying to do the right thing the wrong way. THAT IS WHY THEIR CHRISTIAN RESOLUTIONS FAIL, not for lack of a Tchividjian false gospel. Thank goodness I didn’t know him. It would have been one New Calvinist leading another into a ditch.
paul
Paxton’s “Shaking” Adds More Confirmation to TTANC: Introduction to Series
I just finished reading “The Shaking of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton. The book was published in 1978 and is an inside look into historical events surrounding the Australian Forum during its apex. Paxton was one of the AF3, and wrote most of the Australian Forum’s articles published in Present Truth magazine which was the Forum’s theology journal.
The book clearly articulates present-day New Calvinism while crediting Robert Brinsmead with rediscovering the Reformation gospel. Paxton only notes two primary sources that helped Brinsmead develop the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS) doctrine that is the heart and soul of New Calvinism: the Reformers, and Seventh-day Adventist leaders. The only exception is the mentioning that a well-known SDA teacher studied under G.C. Berkouwer, a gospel contemplationist quoted often by New Calvinists such as Michael Horton. The Forum also quoted Berkouwer extensively.
Paxton’s thesis is the following: Adventists have always claimed to be the guardians of Reformation doctrine, so the idea that the Reformation was rediscovered through them should be no surprise. COGOUS is clearly defined as the original Reformation doctrine. Paxton documents the historical events that paved the way for Brinsmead’s “discovery.”
Without any exception, the book strongly supports the position of “The Truth About New Calvinism.” More to come after I get back from celebrating my first year with Susan. Our anniversary is tomorrow.
May your new year be blessed by our Lord,
paul
leave a comment