Frank Turk Helps Case Against New Calvinism Before Excommunicating Me From Pyro
“So, is understanding Piper like going to college? Are there prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it?”
“Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down: ‘Going forward, ‘Paul’ will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.’ ”
As Susan and many of my close friends know, the ill effects of New Calvinist theology on real life hits close to home for me. For me, this isn’t intriguing theological debate—I see the debris that is continually being cleaned up after this hideous doctrine. One writer called John Piper “the elder statesman of New Calvinism.” Yes, him: the one, who among other things, proclaims with certainty how someone who is genuinely saved will feel during the conversion process—apparently, they will always have joy. But the problem is how many of us, especially in western culture, and especially a new Christian, might interpret “joy.” Isn’t dogma concerning how we”feel” during conversion a subject that is best left alone lest it sets up a stumbling block to salvation? (As I have personally witnessed). Not for John Piper—he fearlessly pontificates with all confidence concerning such matters, like other New Calvinist such as Tim Keller who recently proclaimed that those who are genuinely saved must also repent of all “good works” that they did while they were unbelievers.
The insanity that is New Calvinism matters not to those I used to deeply respect among Evangelical leaders. John MacArthur and his closest associate, Phil Johnson, are absolutely hell-bent on lending creditability to the likes of John Piper via association and accolades. Phil Johnson authors a blog named Pyromaniacs. I have visited Pyro on two occasions (with multiple visits within a short time frame for each occasion)—at the behest of a friend: yesterday, and a year ago because of dialogue that was occurring there that my friend wanted me to be privy to.
Before I continue, the purpose of this post is to reveal the fact that Pyro will defend Piper for any reason and at all cost. Why? Have they, including MacArthur, become New Calvinist? I’m beginning to think so. The exchange also enabled me to better articulate what Piper teaches, which is very opportune because of his mastery in deceptive doublespeak. The latter is my primary purpose. If you want to skip all the drama and focus on that, see the two GREEN sections.
The latest topic was another open letter to John Piper authored by a member of the Pyro Team of authors, Frank Turk. The letter was like the last one I was referred to which was a “gee whiz, pweeze stop saying stuff wike that because we wuv you soooo much and it’s getting harder and harder and harder to defend you.” After being accused by Turk on an initial comment of being off-topic, I noted the first comment by another Pyro Team member (Dan Phillips) to make sure I was perceived as being on-topic regarding further comments:
Another stellar letter. Thanks, Frank.
I may say more later, but for now let me join you in affirming my own appreciation for and personal indebtedness to John Piper. Those factors don’t dull the concern I feel for Piper’s attempt here to help Warren; they heighten that concern. I think the interview neither helps Warren personally, nor does it help his perception in the eyes of those who are concerned about his (to be charitable) many missteps.
My comment that caused a disturbance was the following:
In light of Elizabeth’s comment and, [Frank Turks answer to it] “I read Ms. Taylor as saying that the radical anti-Warren crowd is disowning Piper without grasping Piper. I agree with her,” I assume the following is on-subject: I am completely indifferent to who Piper associates with because I have formed judgments about what Piper believes based on what he says and what he writes.
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value” (see Matthew 26 and Hebrews 11 on that ridiculous notion). My concern is for those he associates with more than anything.
A comment came later by a Pyro reader that challenged my accusation:
Paul, your comments should be retracted if you cannot back them up with evidence. Anyone who has spent time in Piper’s works already knows that you have either grossly misinterpreted his positions (at best) or are simply slandering him (at worst). Either way, you should retract the statements.
The challenge was pulled down by Turk later. Here is my response:
1. He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
2. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions: “Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).” [Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his “Desiring God” website].
“We [Christians] are enslaved to pleasure…” That’s not true about a Christian in ANY regard. Notice he cites Romans 6:17 which is in the past tense, but his statement is in the present tense speaking of the same condition of the past tense verse. How can he do that? Easy—he thinks justification and sanctification are the same regarding our role.
3. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing: From Another Gospel P.M. Dohse, p.111 concerning Piper’s sermon, God Strengthens Us by the Gospel:
“’I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone. I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.’
Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved.”
CONTINUE
4. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith:
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy” (Desiring God page 66).
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure” (Desiring God, page 68).
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (Desiring God page 67).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
5. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value”: “Unless a spontaneous affection for my person motivates you, your overtures are stripped of all moral value” (Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his Desiring God website).
Turk responded with a classic New Calvinist defense—if you haven’t read all of Piper’s books (what? 600 or so by now?), you can’t evaluate any of his particular statements:
Paul:
You have never read the book, “What Jesus Demands of the World”, by John Piper, have you?
So, is understanding Piper like going to college? There are prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it? However, after this, he did reply:
I have read Paul’s mini-thesis on Dr. Piper and have found it, um, shall we say “less than serious with the subject matter, [Frank, please just address the quotes that plainly demonstrate my accusations] but very serious in terms of offensiveness.” It’s out, and if it turns up again, it will get deleted again [thanks for the warning Frank—like I would try to repost it—you take yourself waaaay too seriously].
Paul: for your own edification, [thanks Frank, got anything on discernment?] here’s my single-subject justification for deleting your posts [because you can’t answer the others].
You said:
[QUOTE]
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the complete text of that sermon
The context for this sermon is a supplement to his 3-year preaching through the book of Romans — Rom 7-8, for example. You’ve read it, I am sure: [no Frank, I didn’t take that Piper prerequisite course] “we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive,” “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me,” “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” But also “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.”
So Piper’s starting point is not whether there is a command to general obedience, or whether we ought to seek to do it: it is Paul’s own words which tell us that seeking justification of ourselves through the Law is only going to bring condemnation — thus we are wretched men. [But Frank, one of my points is that he then projects that point onto sanctification].
And his text for the sermon is 1 Tim 1:5-11. “we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person” and so on [your not going to answer the question, are you?].
You are concerned that he says this much: ” if the law has done its condemning and convicting work to bring you to Christ for justification and transformation, then it is not made for you any more …”
But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: “– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.”
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message [no, he later projects the justification point onto the subject of sanctification—making the two equal]. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper [no, you are slandering me, I assume, unwittingly, because you can’t decipher Piper’s deceptive doublespeak].
Don’t do that. This is your only warning.
Turk then pulled down my posts that I copied above, which I commented on:
Frank,
The fact that you pulled my posts while only addressing the more nuanced statement by Piper is telling. The fact that neither you, nor anyone else will address Piper’s outrageous statements in Desiring God is also telling. And, I find the linguistic demeanor that suggests that posting here is some kind of privilege….well, arrogant and laughable.
That initiated this lame response from Dan Phillips:
Yeah, it’s “telling” that we have a policy of trying to keep comments on the topic of the post, which your personal hobby-horse/vendetta isn’t.
And for general edification: the position that Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se, is neither fringe nor heresy.
Obviously, my comments were on topic. Turk is the one who opened the floor to the whole “condemning Piper without grasping Piper” thing. Hobby-horse? Vendetta? I checked. Of the 218 articles posted on my blog right now, a search turned-up zero on “John Piper” that are presently posted, but I remember one that I can’t find. In fact, someone who was apparently involved in the conversation over at Pyro emailed me and complained that they couldn’t find any of my articles on Piper. What is Phillips talking about? A New Calvinist hobby-horse? Well, he would be correct about that, but you know, somebody has to tell the truth. Accolades are not the truth just because they are accolades.
Furthermore, what’s up with, “Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se,” Huh? What’s the difference in light of Paul telling Timothy that “all Scrpture” is profitable for making the man of God fully equipped? What Scripture equips us and which doesn’t? Nothing in the Law of Moses equips us? And as far as living by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), is it not that per se, but this per se? Does Phillips even know what he’s saying? I doubt it.
Meanwhile, Piper Koolaid Drinker extraordinaire, Mike Ricardo, said this to the reader who launched the original challenge:
You’re welcome to venture into this with Paul, but just know that he’s already ground this axe some time ago — in fact, almost a year ago to the day [this should reveal how enamored I am with the Pyro team]. This is his pet issue, and despite the lengths to which responses have gone, there seems to be no arrival in his understanding.
Add to that the fact that this post has nothing to do with Piper’s theology of Law and Gospel, but with his recent interview with Rick Warren [then why did Phillips make the opening comment that he made?].
The individual who first challenged me then typed this Extreme Anti-Berean Team statement:
Mike Riccardi,
thanks for the heads up. I should have known better. [CLICK, that was easy! Is it now any wonder why Pyro has the following that they have?]
I made this final appeal:
Frank,
I’m not too sure you guy’s KNOW my motives; forgive me if I don’t take that to the bank just yet. So, you guys have no problem with the 6 quotes from Desiring God. Ok, fair enough, but just do me one last favor; I will not even respond—I will let your answer stand as it is for your readers and will be instructed by it—as my promise not to respond should indicate. Fair enough? And besides, you did respond to it—I’m just requesting a final clarification.
First, you said:
“But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: ‘– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.’
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper.”
But Frank, he goes on to say: “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.” How does that jive with John 17:17 and John 14:15,16? Is he not saying that as believers, we have to go through the “gospel” first before the law—and if we don’t, we are acting as if the power is in the letter of the law instead of the Spirit? And what does it mean to love through the gospel as opposed to loving through the law? What does that even mean? Our love is defined by “gospel” and not “law”? Frank, is this not a fair question? AND, the law and the gospel are for justification, but moving forward—only the gospel is applicable for sanctification? Forgive me if it is eerily similar to, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.”
Second, and lastly, and I will bother you no more:
On point 3, I cite his entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is “us”? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need “strengthening”—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, apparently, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: “Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here”;
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone”
BUT then he concludes, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE with:
“I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.”
Frank, he is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need the gospel, and being “strengthened in you own strength” is the object. AND, this is an *either/or* hermeneutic that implies that it is either all God (gospel—ever read ”God is the Gospel”?) OR all “us.” But in John 14:16, which is connected to verse 15 by the conjunction “and,” (as translated by the Bible of choice according to Piper, the ESV), the Holy Spirit is called a “helper.” What is he helping us with? It’s in verse 15—loving Christ by keeping his commandments! So, how do we know when our “own efforts “ are our “own strength” instead of God’s? What’s the difference between striving to obey with the Spirit’s “help” and being strengthened by the strength God gives “according to the gospel” which also necessitates the law to condemn for justification, but now only the “gospel” apart from the law is needed?
Are these not fair questions?
Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down:
Going forward, “Paul” will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.
Frank, I’m not sure, but I have a hunch that I will get over it.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 8: The Brinsmead / Zens Affair Gives Birth To New Calvinism
As I continue to absorb an astounding document written by Jon Zens, “Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984),” the Zens/Brinsmead connection and its contribution to the birth of New Calvinism becomes evident. Zens’ essay covers the early years of the movement until the time when it took on a life of its own—1984.
Zens became a Calvinist in 1967 and joined Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Prospectville, PA in 1972. During this time, according to him, he began his quest into the “law/gospel issue.” He became a teacher there and started preparing Sunday school lessons that refuted Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Apparently, these theologies contradicted where he wanted to go with the law/gospel issue. At least ten students from Westminster Seminary were in his class. In the same timeframe, he became a student at Westminster and was receiving Present Truth (hereafter PT), the theological journal of the Australian Forum. It seems that the journal had a wide readership there because it was “the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at the time.” Hence, the father of New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and the Australian Forum were impregnating Westminster with elements of New Calvinism from the very beginning. The infusion of other Reformed Baptist such as John Piper could have happened in a number of different ways as Zens was a Reformed Baptist and PT had a wide readership among Reformed Baptist as well.
Furthermore, Zens moved to Nashville in 1975 and was writing articles for the Baptist Reformed Review (hereafter BRR) which was started by Norbert Ward in 1972. It is clear that Zens turned the magazine into a vessel for promoting a “Christ-centered approach to ethics.” In reading this historical account by Zens, it makes one’s head spin as it seems he was on a mission with a vengeance while living out of a suitcase—to create and spread some sort of new twist on “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” Nevertheless, the vessels at his disposal were very influential; and therefore, it is surprising that it has taken thirty-six years for this movement to arrive at its present zenith. BRR later became the official theological journal for the Continental Baptist who split from Reformed Baptist over NCT.
Meanwhile, the desire to synthesize justification and sanctification is nothing new. JC Ryle said: “ But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ—that is, justification and sanctification.” Overemphasizing Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit in order to do so is not that difficult. In fact, that’s exactly the error Ryle was contending with in his time. But in regard to eschatology, God’s emphasis on last things seems to bring up all kinds of pesky issues that eclipse the centrality of His Son, like Israel etc. What to do? Answer: invoke good ole’ fashioned Hagelian Historicism (pp. 67, 68, Tim Black: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos). It is clear that the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) was a think tank seeking to codify sanctification by justification alone into a unified theological system (with the primary motive of reforming Adventism). In doing this, law/gospel; obedience, and eschatology would have been key considerations. The Zens/Af connection filled the order.
Zens met with Brinsmead at length in 1979 and pointed out a contradiction in the AF’s view of law verses the centrality of Christ in evangelism. Zens said that the result was “brilliant” essays appearing in Verdict (formally PT). Zens wrote at least one article for the AF (when it was still PT) that apes the NC motif that any other consideration of Scripture apart from a redemptive-historical view is existentialism. This is also a major theme in Michael Horton’s writings. In 1981 and 1982, Zens spoke at “several” Verdict (AF seminars) seminars on the west coast, and admits that he changed the name of BRR to “Searching Together” in order to accommodate Adventist readers. Toward the end of the essay, Zens quotes Brinsmead from Judged by the Gospel in which Brinsmead states the AF’s affirmation that all of history must be seen through the gospel, a NCT staple.
It is clear that remnants of sanctification by justification alone were loosely about along with attempts to convert eschatology into a plenary gospel historicism, but there is little doubt that Zens and the AF were the ones who did the heavy lifting in regard to forming these ideas into a systematic theology. Without that systematic theology, the New Calvinism movement is not what it is today, if anything at all. In fact, Zens’ cohorts among Reformed Baptist (including John Reisinger, a longtime friend of Zens) sought to form their own association because they feared the “movement” would end up being a “flash in the pan.”
paul
New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
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
52 comments