Great Link
Peter Lumpkins posted a great find on his blog. It is a link to fourteen copies of Jay Adams’ book on Sonship Theology. The cost of the books reflect the fact that it is unfortunately out of print. Here is the link: http://goo.gl/SPlS6
New Calvinism’s Lawless, Conscienceless Gospel
While taking a short break yesterday, I decided to do some channel surfing. I stumbled across the movie, “Veronica Guerin.” The movie is based on a true story. Guerin was an Irish Journalist who started writing about the Irish mob during the 90’s. They didn’t like that. They warned her to stop thrice: once by firing shots through the front of her house, once by threatening to kidnap her son, and once by shooting her in the leg. She wouldn’t stop. This courage eventually caught up with her in 1996 when she was assassinated by Irish drug lords. They shot her six times with a .357 magnum. Her murder evoked outrage among the general public and led to laws being passed that decimated the Irish mob. One such law enabled the government to seize any asset that couldn’t be validated by a source.
This all caused me to revisit something that has always haunted me because I wondered if she was a Christian. I don’t know if she was or not, but for sure, unbelievers often partake in heroic and righteous acts that do nothing to earn them any favor with God for salvation purposes. I always find myself pleading their case before God with a heart that admires them for their courage or righteous acts, often knowing they have something I don’t have at times, even as a Christian. Some theologians say their righteous acts are ALWAYS for the wrong motives, but I don’t buy that for a second.
One such case, that of Oskar Schindler, almost demands a verdict on the question. As far as can be ascertained, he wasn’t a Christian: “Although he never formally renounced his religion, Oskar was never more than an indifferent Catholic” (The New York Times. 13 October 1974). Schindler’s heroics in saving 1200 Jews during WWII is well documented. He employed them in his munitions factory, and had them classified as vital workers in the war effort when the fact of the matter was that many of them did not possess those qualifications. Motives? He dissipated the profits of the lucrative business to support workers who could not really contribute to the bottom line, but was merely supplying cover for them.
However, in study that has become necessary due to the pious proclamations of New Calvinism concerning the supposed dichotomies between law and gospel, I think I am much closer to an answer. As a typical dumbed-down Christian of this era, enslaved to the musings of arrogant seminarians, I have only recently begun to understand the biblical concept of all humanity being born under the law. It’s a broad subject, but the element I would like to focus on is the fact that under the auspices of this topic is the reality that every human born on earth has the law of God written on their heart.
Which is another fascinating biblical topic (and another reason why New Calvinists want you to think the Bible is not topical), the whole subject of writing on hearts. New Calvinist, especially the New Covenant Theology type, make a really big deal out of the law being written on our hearts by God in the New Covenant as if writing on the heart is unique to the New Covenant. Before that, supposedly, it’s significant that the law was written on tablets of cold, hard, stone rather than our whittle soft, fleshy hearts. It adds to the whole New Calvinist motif that there is some great gulf between law and gospel. Only problem is, among many others—the complete culmination of the New Covenant is obviously future (see Jeremiah 31), and there are other forms of heart writing going on. In fact, in the Old Testament, WE are commanded to write the word of God on our own hearts:
“Keep my commands and you will live; guard my teachings as the apple of your eye.
Bind them on your fingers; write them on the tablet of your heart” (Proverbs 7:2,3).
“Let love and faithfulness never leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. Then you will win favor and a good name in the sight of God and man” (Proverbs 3:3,4).
Then in Romans 2:14,15 we find the following:
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.”
So, the law of God, in some kind of general form, is written on the hearts of all people and administered through the conscience. On that same wise, even Christians are commanded to yield to their consciences: Acts 23:1, 24:16, Romans 9:1, 13:5 (not necessarily proof of innocence: 1Corinthians 4:4), 2Corinthians 1:12, 4:2, 5:11, 1Timothy 1:5, 1:19, 3:9, 2Timothy 1:3, and Titus 1:5.
Is this law written on the hearts of all people responsible for their heroic actions? I strongly suspect that’s the case. Interestingly, here is what Herbert Steinhouse wrote about Oskar Schindler in The Real Oskar Schindler:
“Oskar Schindler’s exceptional deeds stemmed from just that elementary sense of decency and humanity that our sophisticated age seldom sincerely believes in. A repentant opportunist saw the light and rebelled against the sadism and vile criminality all around him. The inference may be disappointingly simple, especially for all amateur psychoanalysts who would prefer the deeper and more mysterious motive that may, it is true, still lie unprobed and unappreciated. But an hour with Oskar Schindler encourages belief in the simple answer.”
But what of biblical texts like Isaiah 64:6 which says, “All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.”
I believe this text speaks of individuals who attempt to earn salvation through righteous acts, or to prove to God (or to themselves) that they are “good” people. Unlike New Calvinist, I reject the idea that this text refers to all righteous acts of all people—even Christians. I seriously doubt that God sees the saving of a child from a burning house as “filthy rags.” Many writers mention that nobody knows for sure why Oskar Schindler did what he did, including himself, but if Oskar Schindler was a confirmed Christian—that would be the reason given, and often is. The crux of the great mystery surrounding Oskar Schindler is that he was a German; and what he did for Jews, and wasn’t a Christian to boot. No?
So what does this say regarding the New Calvinist attitude towards the law? Can we really reach a lost world when unbelievers put more stock in the law written on their hearts (even if they are unaware of it) than professing Christians put in the actual written, every word that comes from the mouth of God, detailed law of God? Would a gospel message that devalues the word of God not be a violation of their own consciences in many cases? What of the New Calvinist mantra that trying to show forth the gospel with our good works is “trying to be the gospel rather than speaking gospel.” Is that a message that is going to resonate with those who only do what’s right because of the law of God written on their hearts? It’s doubtful.
It seems that a gospel that includes this truth about the law is also a gospel that speaks powerfully to people who are morally upright; in many cases, more so than professing Christians. They only do what they do because of what God wrote on their hearts, but the problem is, they will be judged by that same law. Both Christians and unbelievers will be judged by the law (but not for justification). For Christians it will determine eternal rewards (2Corinthians 5:10). For unbelievers, it will determine their degree of eternal punishment (Matthew 11:24).
And let there be no doubt, when unbelievers judge Christians, it’s according to the law as well. If our lives don’t even measure up to the standard of their own consciences, then “As it is written: ‘God’s name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you’” (Romans 2:24,). Jesus said in Matthew 5:16, “In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.”
When Christ began his ministry, the religious climate was barely any different than today. Apparently, it was commonly taught that a prophet would come and abolish the law (Matthew 5:17). The religious leaders of that day had a “relaxed” attitude towards the law (Matthew 5:19), and contrary to the New Calvinist lie that the Pharisees were expert law-keepers, Christ warned His audience that their righteousness needed to surpass that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5:20) who were “lawless” both in their inward thought life and outward behavior (Matthew 23:28, 34-36). They also commonly misapplied the word of God according to their own preference (Matthew 5:21-48, 15:1-9) making the law of God “void” (Matthew 15:6).
As New Calvinism deemphasizes the law and dumbs it down into a gospel narrative
(reductionism), the unregenerate will practice just as many attributes as professing Christians display—the same attributes that Peter commanded us to add to our faith in 2Peter 1:5-11. Basically, New Calvinism is blurring the line that unbelievers know is there.
When unbelievers do extraordinary things, though it is applauded, it is not really known why they do it. Heroes are still a mystery. On the other hand, these are imperatives spoken of in God’s word; for example, courage, virtue, justice, etc. So when Christians do these things, it is assumed that they did it because they are Christians—it’s what Christians do—because they are God’s children and we are like him.
New Calvinism asserts that all the righteous acts of men are filthy rags. The ONLY difference between us and the unregenerate is BELIEF in the “historic Christ event.” Well, the demons believe in that event also and shudder. And unbelievers are not going to buy that package either—their consciences won’t let them. But isn’t the movement growing? Right, with a bunch of professing Christians looking for the latest novelty—heaping to themselves teachers with itching ears.
paul
But Peter, They’re Not Really Calvinist! An Open Letter To Peter Lumpkins
Dear Peter,
I write to you as a fellow Southern Baptist.
I think real Calvinism has brought good things to Southern Baptists, but I just wanted to write you and mention that your present contention is not with real Calvinism.
They call themselves Calvinists, but that’s a lie. In fact, real Calvinists contend against them. Let me explain. The present movement you see in the SBC has a Calvinism label, but was really hatched by Jon Zens and a Seventh-day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead. Brinsmead created a project called the Australian Forum to promote the doctrine, and the two other primary contributors were Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Their family tree, a work of mine with the help of others, can be seen in the following chart:
The basic frame of the doctrine they created is known as the centrality of the objective gospel (COG), and is what drives the present movement you see in the SBC. Apparently, the movement is now known as “New Calvinism,” and entails the T4G, The Gospel Coalition, and many, many other organizations that promote the movement.
Basically, it teaches that the gospel is something completely outside of us (objective), and that we are transformed by contemplating the depths of the gospel (or as John Piper states it: “Beholding as a way of becoming”). This outside, objective focus supposedly aids us in not being distracted by things that are subjective; for instance, even the belief that we are born again. In fact, the movement denies the significance of the new birth and teaches that Christians are still totally depraved. This can be illustrated by the video circulating on the Web called “John Piper is Bad” which doesn’t mean Piper is a cool guy, but rather that he is still a “T” in TULIP—totally depraved. Unlike real Calvinism, it projects TULIP onto sanctification as well. Piper acknowledged in an interview that he understood the video to mean exactly that and also agreed with it. Certainly, traditional Calvinism does not believe that Christians are still totally depraved.
In other words, the movement only recognizes justification (objective) and not the vital union or the new birth (subjective). We are supposedly transformed by focusing on the historical Christ event alone. This is why CJ Mahaney, one of the “core four” with Al Mohler in the T4G, always presents the gospel in the five-word epigram “Christ died for our sins.” In like manner, Piper presents a justification only gospel in “The gospel in 6 Minutes: “In a sentence….That’s the gospel.”
In 2008, one of the Australian 3, Graeme Goldsworthy, spoke at Southern Seminary (in the Australian Forum’s theological journal “Present Truth,” both Paxton and Goldsworthy declared the new birth a “false gospel”). John Piper reviewed Goldsworthy’s visit/lecture in an article posted on his Desiring God website (Piper is one of the keynote speakers at the 2012 T4G). In that article, Piper affirmed COG, and wrote the following:
“When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel [emphasis his, not mine].”
This is an interesting statement considering that Southern Baptists certainly change emphasis to our role as new creatures after we are saved. Piper is saying to do so is to put one’s soul in peril, and this is also exactly what the AF3 propagated. Furthermore, Piper seems to be saying that any emphasis on the work of Christ inside of us is a false gospel—also what the AF3 advocated. Peter, trust me, this problem is way bigger than Calvinism.
In addition, real Calvinist have fought this problem tooth and nail. As you can see from their family tree, the doctrine was repackaged by Dr. John Miller in the form of Sonship Theology while he was at Westminster Seminary. Pastors in the PCA (Calvin’s denomination) have been fighting the doctrine for years, especially Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book against it in 1999. Tim Keller, a major figure in the New Calvinist movement, as well as David Powlison, were followers of John Miller. During a lecture at John Piper’s church, Powlison called Miller his mentor and chastised Adams for being critical of Dr. Miller for coining the phrase, “We must preach the gospel [justification] to ourselves everyday.” However, the fact that the criticism was in book form seemed to have slipped Powlison’s mind. Moreover, readers of my blog, one of which is taking the Sonship course presently, assure me that Sonship clearly teaches the total depravity of the saints, rejects the new birth, and holds to a New Covenant Theology view of the law. It is also common knowledge that Keller has taught Sonship Theology extensively.
It’s all the same doctrine. If the doctrine hadn’t found new life at Westminster, it wouldn’t have survived the brutal pushback by Reformed Baptist (more real Calvinist) such as Walter Chantry. Chantry and others adamantly called it out for what it is: “neo-antinomianism.” In the same way that COG plagued the Reformed Baptist by splitting churches and families, this doctrine continues to wreak havoc on God’s people.
Peter, worry about the real Calvinist later—these guys must go!
paul
2 comments