By Request, But….
A reader viewed the Old Calvinism / New Calvinism chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Bc ) and the GS / Sonship heart model chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-BD ), and found them both “helpful.” She then asked if I had an Old Calvinism / New Calvinism heart model comparison chart. Uh, well, ya, I do, but it was really just something I was playing around with. However, since the individual has impressive theological credentials–maybe the charts aren’t as, well, non-helpful as I thought they were. So, here they are, BUT remember: these are just tools to hang our thoughts on.
But I will say this, I think the charts bring up some interesting points:
1. As I was developing the OC chart, I was struck by how several Scriptures came to mind on each element. To the contrary–that was not the case with the NC chart. HOWEVER, it would be awesome to have a NC proponent tag the different elements of the NC with Scripture. For sure, that would be an interesting challenge.
2. Keep in mind, the charts are in regard to sanctification and the “heart” which is being used to refer to the inner man. With that said–interesting observations can be made; such as, a two-fold limited model verses a many faceted model, and what is inner verses outer.
3. The NC chart needs explanation which follows before the charts.
4. I hope somebody takes this concept and develops something awesome. I really see myself as a get the ball rolling guy.
Gospel Narrative:
It all starts with the Bible being a gospel narrative only. The belief is that the Spirit only sanctifies through the contemplation of the personhood of Christ (whatever that means exactly), or who He is as a person and His works. For instance, to read the Bible with the goal of ascertaining instruction, even by Christ, and applying it to ones life, is an improper use of Scripture (according to GS), and an endeavor that the Spirit will not honor because it focuses on our efforts, and not who Christ is, and what He has done and accomplished for us. To do the prior is to use the Bible as a “instruction book” and not to gain a deeper understanding of the finished works of Christ. Therefore, proponents of GS do not believe that spiritual growth is really taking place in Christian circles where the Scriptures are used for any other purpose than the Chrstocentric approach.
Belief:
Now we come to one of two elements of justification moving forward via the gospel narrative. GS believes that the same gospel leading to justification that saved us, also sanctifies us. Hence, like justification (salvation), their is only two things we can do to grow spiritually, believe and repent. The GS doctrine holds that gazing upon the gospel narrative will lead to more belief, and belief will always produce proper behavior on its own, being earmarked by the right desires. We will follow belief to the bottom of the chart, and then start back at the top with the second, or other half of the sanctification process according to GS, repentance.
Law Positive:
Proper use of the Scripture (according to GS) sees the Law as a description of what Christ has already done for us, fulfilling the law with His life because we are unable to, even as Christians.Therefore, seeing all of the laws Christ has fulfilled for us gives us a deeper appreciation of who He is and what his works accomplished for us.
Treasure:
Seeing who Christ is, and all of His works in Scripture, and all that he has done for us, causes us to treasure Him above all else. Therefore, it becomes our desire to be whatever He is. GS believes that we are primarily driven by desire; and in fact, enslaved by it. Therefore, change the desires, and you change behavior. Assumes our appreciation of Christ’s greatness and mercy is all the motivation we need to change our desires.
Repentance:
This is the second part of our limited role in the sanctification process according to GS. All other activities are a mere natural flow from the Christ in us. It is not we who live, but Christ who lives in us (Galations 2:20). Again, like salvation, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us, and is limited to belief and repentance, with everything else flowing from Christ who lives in us.
Response to Circumstances:
God’s purpose in all circumstances (according to GS) is to reveal idols of the heart so that we can repent of them. How we respond to circumstances reveals what we desire more than Christ. The particular idol that caused us to respond in a Christless manner can be identified by asking ourselves interpretive questions (what did you want? [more than Christ?]). Scripture, which is (according to GS) a grand gospel story (gospel meta narrative), can also reveal to us what the heart idol might be by how other saints responded to the same circumstances in redemptive (gospel) history. So, another limited purpose of Scripture is to help us determine idols of the heart so that we can repent of them.
This is done by showing us what other saints in redemptive history wanted (desired) more than Christ. As you might imagine therefore, how GS effects biblical counseling is profound. The focus will be on identifying heart idols and their attached desires, and changing desires of the heart, rather than behavior through biblical prescriptions born of other approaches to biblical interpretation. Some would argue: objective (behavior) verses subjective (heart issues).
Interpretive Questions:
These are merely “desire” questions that can help us determine what we love more than Christ. The most common one is “What did you want more than Christ?” Or simply, “What did you want?” However, the Christian Counseling and Education Foundation has a list of about one-hundred that they call “X-Ray questions.”
Law Negative:
This is the use of the Law (in Scripture) to drive us to despair by suggesting that we attempt to uphold the Law by application, and thereby driving us back to the cross (being impossible to accomplish). According to GS, the Law is still a schoolmaster that drives us to Christ in sanctification, and in the same way that it does in justification as well; unless, It is seen as being the works of Christ fulfilled for us (Law Positive). Law Negative has a purpose in revealing heart idols to us as well; such as, the desire to be self-dependant (heart idol of pride). Besides, the law has no use to us anyway (Christians) because it has been fulfilled by Christ and replaced by the one Law of love (I will not address this here for lack of room). According to GS advocates, Christians are only obligated to uphold the singular law of love. However, both Law Positive and Law Negative have their respective antithetical purposes for being present in the gospel narrative.
Idols Revealed by Interpreting Desires:
When the methods under “Repentance” are employed to determine idols, we can then repent of them, resulting in “Deep Repentance.”
Deep Repentance:
Also known as “intelligent repentance.” We can eliminate the idol by repenting of the thing we desired more than Christ, and replace it with a truth about Christ that we should desire or treasure more than anything or anyone. This is also known as the “reorientation of desires.” This leads to “New Obedience”
Flesh Realm:
Most GS advocates do not believe that the fight between us and sin takes place on the battle ground of the “flesh.” They believe the battle ground is the “heart.” Though they often speak of the “flesh,” they don’t think it is an inner turf where the real war takes place. This Theory makes our own efforts a point of contention in favor of a more passive viewpoint.Most GS advocates believe it is a realm that puts pressure on us, and at any given time, we either yield to the Spirit or yield to the flesh (a sinful, or worldly realm).
Law Realm:
Since the Law is sometimes said to aggravate sin, some GS proponents also attribute the Law to being part of the Flesh Realm.
Spirit Realm:
The other realm that exerts pressure on us. We simply yield to one or the other.
New Obedience:
New obedience is the natural result of “Belief” and “Deep Repentance.” Since belief is the result of seeing the glory of Christ in the gospel narrative, and causing us to desire and treasure Him more than other things, new obedience will naturally be accompanied by joy and experienced as a “mere natural flow.” Some GS proponents teach that it is actually Christ obeying for us. This is called the “imputed active obedience of Christ.” However, more GS advocates believe this than are willing to admit it.
Addendum: New Desires and Reorientation of Desires:
This is merely what happens automatically when Christ fills the void of eradicated idols through the only two disciplines of sanctification according to GS: belief, and deep repentance.
If anybody would like these charts in some kind of file: pmd@inbox.com
paul
Should Christian Doctrinal Debate Be Public?
I have taken a lot of heat lately over my public criticism of New Calvinism. Some arguments, for example, go something like this:
“I respect you working hard at something you so fiercely believe in but in the grand scheme of the Great Commission, do these arguments help or hurt the cause of Christ? Sparring between brothers in a good debate is one thing, but making a spectacle of Christianity is not a testament of the grace of God. It is dangerous to publicly call out other brothers.”
Though this comment was made in the same thread as those defending New Calvinist, that wasn’t the intent of this Christian—the intent was to simply pose the question for consideration. However, there was an element of New Calvinism that I wanted to post on that can be based on this question; so, let the New Calvinist themselves answer this question. Also, you can frame this post in regard to comments like the following as well: “Who are you to publicly criticize these great men of God?” Or: “How dare you slam God’s chosen men?” Or: “DA Carson is the greatest theological mind in recent history—who are you?”
Let me set the table. At the 2006 Together for the Gospel conference (T4G), New Calvinist presented an official statement on “the gospel.” T4G is a gargantuan organization (along with The Gospel Coalition) that promotes New Calvinism. The document was divided into three primary categories: “In the essentials unity…in the nonessentials, liberty…and in all things, charity.”
In the essentials unity? Many of the core leaders of T4G are Charismatics. In fact, a huge portion of the New Calvinist movement includes Sovereign Grace Ministries which is an organization founded on—get this: “Reformed Charismatics.” One of the T4G’s “Core four” is CJ Mahaney who is president of SGM. So, obviously, teaching that Christians don’t get all of the Holy Spirit when they are saved is not essential to the gospel. Hmmmm.
In the nonessentials, liberty? That would be anything and everything other than the four core elements of New Calvinism: sanctification by faith alone (sanctification by justification only), the total depravity of the saints, daily salvation, and Scripture as narrative only—not instruction. Please, please, don’t complain that these four tenets are not substantiated in this post; this blog is pregnant with direct quotations from New Calvinist that confirm these tenets. Also, indicative of the movement’s confusion, part of Article XVI states, “We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings.” Though I agree, what does that have to do with the essentials of the gospel? That’s more of an essential than Pneumatology? Not only that, Charismatics ordain women all the time! I might also add that Steve Camp had the following complaint in regard to the document: “In these eighteen articles there is no Scripture listed.”
In all things, Charity? Here, I finally get to the point: all things charity unless you’re an orthodox evangelical. Because of the shear mass of this movement and its immense media power; and in a twist of absurd irony, there has never been a time in redemptive history when orthodox Christianity has been more fustigated publicly by professing Christians. The best known proponents of the movement constantly accuse evangelicals at large of promoting a false gospel, and nothing has ever been more public. Furthermore, it boils down to nothing more than a call for mass division in the church. As a matter of fact, I was attending a church in Fort Wayne, Indiana that was loosing members to a New Calvinist church in the area, and the elders couldn’t figure out why. Not only that, the departing members seemed to be offended, and no wonder.
Though, again, several examples can be found on this blog, I will cite some examples:
Tullian Tchividjian: “As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters…..Fundamentalist smother the gospel in moralism.”
Paul Washer: [I don’t believe that] “even 15% of my Baptist brethren are saved….we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us [emphasis mine]. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is ‘the’ message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Michael Horton: “Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” [in other words: if you don’t believe in sanctification by faith alone—your lost, and that would definitely be the vast majority of evangelicals].
Chad Bresson: “I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible [by using it for instruction and wisdom], that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And that is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.”
John Piper: “ You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel….I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation” [if you don’t preach the gospel to yourself everyday].
Comment on an article by Justin Taylor, The Gospel Coalition Blog: “It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification [salvation] occurs EACH [emphasis NOT mine] time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins [among the many other comments posted on this article including those by Justin Taylor and Chad Bresson—none disputed this comment / statement. In fact, Bresson supported it by indicating that Christ presently obeys for us].
Paul David Tripp: “I am deeply concerned that the gospel has been redefined in the contemporary church in a terribly significant way.”
Concerning the aforementioned question, I will answer it from the standpoint of this blog; when a massive movement calls on evangelicals to acknowledge that they have been sold a bill of goods concerning the gospel for the past several hundred years, and in a very public way, does one have any choice but to counter that publicly? I don’t think so. Can the ignoring of such a movement hinder the gospel? Absolutely.
paul
Discernment Ministry and Philippians 4:13
I am working on a major project right now in regard to GS/Sonship theology. But as I often do, I let myself get distracted, and started doing some reading for a post that is in the batter’s box. Even with being immersed in this foul doctrine, God keeps showing me more, and more. One reality that I have seen of late (discovered in the project I mentioned) is how the movement has systematically redefined almost every tenet of the Christian faith. This tempted me to put some thought into the post that is in the batter’s box. The post will be about how GS has redefined the traditional definition of Antinomianism. Guess what? It’s not what you thought it was—it’s really legalism! Go figure.
I am using (for the post) what I think will be the future, official systematic theology of the GS movement: “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the way” by Michael Horton (over 1000 pages). I’m not a prophet, but I would be willing to bet that this book is already the official text for systematic theology in many seminaries. As I was reading the section on Antinomianism and the relationship of law to the Christian life on pages 673-680, something occurred to me, but I will share some other thoughts first.
In that section, Horton employs the usual techniques found in GS teaching: lots of orthodox statements, red herrings, straw men, pink elephants, nuance par excellence, and criticism of movements that believe the same thing GS proponents believe. Then it occurred to me. I’m not smart enough, educated enough, tenacious enough, disciplined enough, organized enough, connected enough, loving of the truth enough, and rich enough to fight this movement. I am up against a doctrine propagated by highly respected men who are paid to do what they do full-time. And…. I guess that’s the beauty of it all.
“ I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” Yes I can. I can be God’s kind of husband, father, parishioner, worker, etc., etc., and God can also use this hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio to bring this vile doctrine to ashes. The bigger the mountain—the more glory for God. Let it be so.
paul
Former Abused Missionary Children Are Loving ABWE God’s Way
“Sometimes, confronting rather than forgiving is the most loving thing you can do.”
If you haven’t been vacationing on another planet, you have probably heard about the group that published a website in order to publicly confront ABWE for covering up the following: http://bangladeshmksspeak.com/
This bold move conjures up all kinds of opinions, but let me begin with the opinions that instigated this post (my second on the subject). My missionary son-in-law posted a 20/20 expose on his FB page about children who were sexually abused in IFB churches: http://www.hulu.com/watch/231215/abc-2020-fri-apr-8-2011?c
I watched the clip, and was struck by how one of the abused children who sought help was counseled by a pastor: “Real Christians forgive and forget, and move on with their lives.” Then, the other day, I visited the aforementioned site and observed this comment on another posted link regarding the Bangladesh children: “Donn Ketcham DID confess his sins a long time ago. Christ has forgiven him, so it’s time the rest of you did likewise!…Mark 11:25-26 states that if we do not forgive then neither will our Heavenly Father forgive US. There is an echo in my mind…’Get over it!’”
Is this true? Are Christians, even those who have been sexually abused, biblically obligated to “forgive and forget”? Before I make my case, let me answer the question and qualify it. The answer is NO; but, that doesn’t mean revenge is in order either. Not forgiving doesn’t equal: revenge is ok. See Romans chapter 12 on that. We are to love those whom we are un-reconciled to (i.e., enemies), and we are to do good to them and bless them. And by the way, speaking from personal experience—that’s really easy to do if you don’t have to forgive them. I can’t explain that, but it’s probably due to the fact that God knows what He’s talking about. Hence, the Bangladesh children (now grown-up) do well: they are not partaking in unbiblcal forgiveness and they are loving those who have wronged them. Huh? That’s right. Sometimes, confronting rather than forgiving is the most loving thing you can do.
Now I’d better make my case. Let’s look at Matthew 18:15-17
“If your brother sins against you,go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
Does ABWE qualify as “brother”? What about Ketcham? Of course they do. And by the way, Jesus doesn’t say “your brother in the local assembly.” A case for a strictly local application cannot be made here. Also note that Jesus says IF he listens to you (repents: see Luke 17:3), “you have won your brother over.” That’s “IF” he repents. If he doesn’t repent, other people are to be involved. If he still doesn’t repent, the church at large is to be told. If he still doesn’t listen: “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Jesus didn’t say, “forgive him anyway.” And, “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” doesn’t sound like forgiveness to me.
Furthermore, Jesus had another opportunity to discuss no-fault forgiveness when His teaching prompted this question by the disciples: “Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, ‘Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?’ Jesus answered, ‘I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.’” This is further elaborated on in Luke 17:3,4; “If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him. If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” In the parable that immediately follows in Matthew’s account, a warning to those who refuse to forgive those who have asked for forgiveness is the issue. In fact, Bible verses that fall under this category (where a seeking to be forgiven is assumed) are usually the ones people cite to make a case for “forgive and forget” whether reconciliation has been sought or not. Notice how Christ emphasizes the necessity of repentance: “If he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times comes back to you and says, ‘I repent,’ forgive him.” It would seem that this would be a better opportunity for Christ to teach no-fault forgiveness even if somebody sins against you seven times in one day. To the contrary, He seems to use the seven times to illustrate the need for reconciliation / repentance instead, and the obligation to forgive accordingly.
Granted, petty offences should be covered with love (1Peter 4:8). And in the Matthew 18 process, if the offended party is being petty—the two witnesses should tell him—that’s the beauty of how the Holy Spirit designed the process (it’s doubtful that He didn’t see some kind of circumstance that isn’t covered). However, forgiving and forgetting serious offences, and thereby leaving the offender in a bad situation with God—is not how we love people. Matthew 5:23,24 states the following: “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.” Proverbs 28:13 says, “He who conceals his sins does not prosper,
but whoever confesses and renounces them finds mercy.” I realize there are many verses like Mark 11:25 that seem to call for blanket forgiveness, but I think these verses assume reconciliation has been sought, and there is also a sense in which we can not allow ourselves to dwell on offences that are un-reconciled (Philippians 4:8,9) which could lead to bitterness. But in all of this, the specific and clear language of Matthew 18 and Luke 17 must be considered.
The Gospel
Though I hesitate to use the gospel for a prism to interpret, one might consider that Ephesians 4:32 says to forgive others the way God has forgiven us, but we must remember that God doesn’t forgive us unless we repent (Acts 2:38). We must be “reconciled” to God (2Corinthians 5:18-21). Let me put this in some real-life context. I have an unsaved relative who has offended me on many occasions, but I have chosen to cover the incidents in love. However, he recently went too far. Though I have had the opportunity to help him after the fact and have done so, I am also making it clear to him that until he acknowledges his sin and commits to not repeating it—our relationship is hindered. “And by the way, God will not forgive you until you reconcile with him as well.” The incident offers more opportunity to present the gospel to him than in past memory. It begs the question: should we forgive in anyway unlike God forgives? Should we forgive in a way that God wouldn’t? Even in regard to Christians, if we do not ask for forgiveness, we are open to be chastised by God (1John 1:9).
What is Forgiveness?
Like the motivation for forgiveness, love, forgiveness is not a feeling. Forgiveness is first a declaration (Isaiah 43:25, Jeremiah 31:34). If forgiveness was just a feeling experienced by the forgiver—we wouldn’t know that we were forgiven. Forgiveness is also active. Jay Adams wrote the following in regard to Isa. 43:25 and Jer. 31:34;
“Obviously, the omniscient God who created and sustains the universe does not forget, but He can not remember. You see, forgetting is passive and is something that we human beings, not being omniscient, do. Not remembering is active; it is a promise whereby one person (in this case, God) determines not to remember the sins of another against him. To not remember is simply a graphic way of saying, I will not bring up these matters to you or others in the future. I will bury them and not exhume the bones to beat you over the head with them. I will never use these sins against you.”
Even if you don’t agree with anything written here, Adams’ clarification above will aid you greatly, for if you believe in no-fault, blanket forgiveness, and you tell the offender accordingly, a vow is still a vow which God takes seriously (Psalm 15:4). It’s safe to assume that many Christians say they forgive others and then hope the right feeling of forgiveness will just happen somehow. Truly “forgetting” will certainly never happen if you talk about it. But let me inject another example at this point. Recently, I saw an interview with a missionary whose husband had been brutally murdered in another country. However, the missionaries belonged to what was a cult by anybody’s standard. I watched as she calmly spoke of how she had completely forgiven her husband’s murderers. Something made me very uneasy about the testimony and I truly doubt the world was impressed by it. Her forgiveness for the murderers may have been her own, but it certainly wasn’t God’s.
Should sexually abused children really “forgive and forget,” and thereby pave the way for (among many, many, other issues) a Christian organization to cover-up criminal activity?
Not only do I doubt that, I would contend that their confrontation is the most formable act of love perpetrated on ABWE and Donn Ketcham in the past thirty years.
paul
3 comments