New Calvinism: It’s Antinomianism, That’s Why…
“The new Calvinism is not a resurgence but an entirely novel formula which strips the doctrine of its historic practice, and unites it with the world.”
~ Dr. Peter Masters
Some time ago, I posted an article in an attempt to answer articles written by bloggers who were bemoaning the behavior of John Piper in regard to who he was inviting to his conferences, etc (one example is Steve Camp’s post: goo.gl/h0R6X). In the post, I say the following: “Let me suggest that Piper’s indifference to this behavior is spawned by his theology. Has that thought ever crossed anybodies mind?” After all, what is our first clue that Piper is an Antinomian when he plainly says that Christians are dead to the Law in regard to sanctification? And, the Law’s only purpose for the believer is to see what Jesus has done for us, period, nothing else (Piper Sermon, “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”). The aforementioned post where I attempt to show the source for Piper’s behavior can be read here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-gG .
But what sparked my re-post of this issue is a couple of articles I stumbled upon by Dr. Peter Masters who is the pastor of Charles Spurgeon’s old church. My guess would be that the folks at the Metropolitan don’t let just anybody in there to be pastor. In the article I will cite, he calls out “New Calvinism” for becoming worldly, and names, names. It is my contention that the primary doctrine of New Calvinism is Gospel Sanctification, or, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us. So obviously, if we could not utilize a role for the Law in justification, other than it showing us our sinfulness and our inability to uphold it, neither can we utilize it for any purpose in sanctification either. That’s Antinomianism: Christians are not obligated to the Law because they are powerless to uphold it and Christ already completely fulfilled it for us anyway ( the imputation of active obedience performed by Christ, not us. Some good articles on this can be found here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C and here: http://networkedblogs.com/bh12C . These links are 3 of 6 by the same author).
So, wouldn’t it stand to reason that such a movement would become more and more worldly? It should; after all, it’s Antinomianism. Dr. Peter Masters’ article is here:
And some of his concerns with John Piper’s theology concerning sanctification can be found here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080513234516/http://www.metropolitantabernacle.org/?page=articles&id=3
paul
A Reader’s Fair Question: What are the Goals of Your Blog Regarding Gospel Sanctification?
Another interesting article, Paul.
These things you write keep leaving me wondering: how are you hoping to help the Evangelical community to stop going the wrong way and start going the right way? How many read your posts? What impact are your posts having? Finally, what are you doing outside of your posts to help? What, if anything, is effective?
Good questions Tad, I’m glad you asked:
The doctrine is the epitome of boiling a frog slowly ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog ). Its covert nature is truly over the top. I sat under it for six years, and knew something didn’t seem right, but couldn’t put my finger on it. The doctrine’s framework has all the orthodox labels, but it redefines the essentials: justification, sanctification, repentance, obedience etc. It synthesizes justification and sanctification, changes repentance into “deep repentance,” and changes obedience into “new obedience.” Interestingly, though I’m sure its proponents don’t have regular meetings, there is a common thread among them: they avoid labels like the plague. It goes along with a deep-seated mentality that to accept a label is to acquiesce to some idea that their doctrine has not been the truth since the beginning.
So, this brings me to answering your first question. An enemy (the doctrine) cannot be defeated until you put a face on it. My primary goal right now is to label this hideous doctrine “Gospel Sanctification,” AND, to promote the idea that GS is, in fact, Antinomianism. Also interesting: when you talk to its proponents directly, and use that term, they don’t blink for a second – they know exactly what you are talking about, but they themselves never use the term, never. I might add that they fear the term and actually despise it for whatever reasons. A good example of this is the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa. When I called them, my first question was, “are you, and your school, proponents of Gospel Sanctification?” Shockingly, the representative of the school answered with a simple “yes.” Somewhat taken aback, I continued: “uh, in other words, the same gospel that saved us, also sanctifies us.” His answer? “Yes.”
Let me interject some simplicity here. The gospel is the good news about justification / justification is monergistic / if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, sanctification is also monergistc / if sanctification is monergistic, that eliminates any use or application of the Law (or Scripture as a whole) in the sanctification process / that’s Antinomianism. By the way, I will soon be doing a series on the Antinomianoch School in Ames, Iowa.
Secondly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better and better at articulating this doctrine in understandable ways while embracing the daunting task of not looking like I’m “dissing the gospel,” a smoke screen that serves its proponents in grand fashion. Men such as Jay Adams even recognize the difficulty in articulating a description of this doctrine.
Thirdly, in regard to your first question, it is my goal to get better equipped men (than me) off their asses to do something about this problem. I think my frustration may be reflected in the prior sentence. The doctrine is blatant Antinomianism invirtue of its premise, and needs to be stopped.
Fourthly, in regard to your first question, I intend to continually challenge better equipped teachers than I to stop loving their relationships with the who’s who of Evangelicalism more than the truth. I will also challenge them to love the truth more than the credibility of their diplomas. If their alma maters are propagating a false doctrine – love the truth more than your diploma.
Now in regard to your second question: I resolved in my heart long ago to do my best to write about this doctrine, no matter how many read my blog, until better equipped men address this problem. I have other goals in life; such as, I would like to go back to school and focus on counseling. With that said, the blog is experiencing a significant increase in readership (well more than double from the blogs conception in August of last year). But, it is what it is, and though the readership does number in the thousands, it just doesn’t matter, somebody has to speak-up any way they can.
Now your third question, “impact.” Five individuals have contacted me directly and said something like this: “Some time ago, our leadership seemed to be taking a different direction. I knew there was something wrong, but I just couldn’t put my finger on it.” The blog, and my book, which was a huge struggle for a layman such as myself (my thanks to those who helped, especially my daughter, Heather), supplied them with an understanding of the doctrine’s major tenets and ramifications. I would also be remiss in not mentioning the fact that at least one church has reversed course in response to a parishioner confronting the leadership using materials from this blog. I think it’s a joke that my book is the only work out there on GS. As I work on the second addition which will focus more on the Antinomian aspect of GS, I continue to pray for others to respond as well. Regarding impact, there is some hint of a very capable person writing a book about the doctrine with my book as a “starting point.” That is what I would consider to be a significant impact.
Furthermore, I suspect many more people have made use of the blog that have not contacted me. From time to time, I will get a flurry of hits from a specific community for an extended period of time. I strongly suspect that it is parishioners trolling the web trying to figure out what the heck is going on in their church. When this happens, they are getting my three years of research dropped in their lap. Amen, couldn’t make me happier.
Lastly, outside of my blog, I am working on the second edition of my book, which I lose money on, and I write letters to prominent Evangelical leaders asking them to not associate with proponents of GS because it lends credibility to the doctrine. For example, I will soon be writing a letter to Al Mohler. I am going to ask him as a fellow Southern Baptist to not attend, nor speak at the 2011 “Together for the Gospel” conference, or T4G. This conference always features the who’s who of Gospel Sanctification, and like the Antioch School, is a major promoter of the doctrine. At some point, all of the letters I have written will be posted on my blog as a testimony to the fact that many of these men really don’t care about the truth, and only listen to those who they see as on par with their own greatness.
Effectiveness? Don’t know, but this I do know: this doctrine will eventually produce something really stupid that people will have to take note of. Because the doctrine has no face yet, its direct cause in situations like Coral Ridge are going unnoticed, but that will change. Also, this doctrine has had very ill effects in the area of counseling, and I have warned certain organizations by letter accordingly. But nothing is being done because when it gets right down to it, they don’t care. What matters is who they play golf with, who writes the forwards in their books, and who’s lunching with them at Applebees during the next scheduled conference.
Blessings to you Tad, and btw, I am still working through the materials you have sent me and have some returns.
Your brother,
paul
Poodles Gone Wild: Reformed Leaders are Teaching Southern Baptists How to Drive
I entered into God’s kingdom labeled as a Southern Baptist in 1983, and I’m not blind to the many problems, well, serious problems within the denomination. In fact, I left the denomination for 15 years because I actually thought there was something better. As I pined away in Dallas, Texas, longing for the means to move to Sun Valley and join John MacArthur’s church, how disillusioned I would have been to arrive there and find Larry Crabb in charge of the “biblical counseling” at Grace Community Church. After reading Larry Crabb’s abominable Inside Out, I could have only stood shell shocked, and 3000 miles from home to boot. Also, the discovery that Mac wrote an endorsement for John Piper’s Desiring God, a theological novel that made Timothy Leary weep with envy, could have only added to the insult.
That was the 80’s; moving into the 90’s, after jumping ship from the SBC, I was nevertheless delighted to see Southern Baptist leaders recruiting the influence of John MacArthur and his Reformed Light theology. But my, how times have changed. For the most part, the Reformed movement, which has been picking up steam over the past 30 years, has been fairly balanced (as far as Reformed goes, relatively speaking) while adding many spiritual benefits to the evangelical community and even the SBC. But its (the Reformed movement) recent transformation in-process via “New Calvinism” is quickly becoming a fast forward study in lunacy. As a matter of fact, it would be hilarious if not for the fact that theology has life consequences. Always. This reality has brought me back home to the Southern Baptist Church, and also thankful for what I have learned. But upon my return, I see the lunacy I fled invading the motherland. The SBC is now moving from the barking Poodle in the Bud Light commercial ( Reformed Light), to the Poodle driving the car (too heavy / New Calvinism), with accompanied occupants in the backseat being terrified while the crazy Poodle runs other cars off the road and mows down fire hydrants:
So, what is the “New Calvinism” that the Reformed movement is morphing into at breakneck speed? Well, it primarily focuses around the Gospel-Driven Life and New Covenant Theology, but the crux of what is driving it is what I want to focus on here. Namely, hermeneutics. Namely, Grammatical-Historical hermeneutics verses Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics. I am going to keep this post simple and two-fold because really, method of interpretation is at the very core of what is driving all of the other issues here. I think my very simple definitions that follow will also serve the purpose of this post as well.
First, GHH holds to a (for lack of a better term) literal approach to interpretation. As the title would suggest, conclusions are drawn from the biblical text in regard to its grammatical formations of verbs, nouns, subjects, prepositional phrases etc. In the RHH, the Scriptures are approached with the idea that all words in the text are formulated for the sole purpose of projecting the finished work of Christ in both justification and sanctification. In other words, it is at least fair to say that the RHH is a much more subjective method than GHH. Many, many, many, examples could be given of how proponents of RHH often ignore tense, the location of the subject in the sentence, the plain sense of prepositional phrases, and which subject is receiving the action of the verb in order to come to a redemptive conclusion.
Though many examples could be given in regard to how these differences of interpretation effect practical theology and life, there is no more glaring, vivid example than church discipline. The difference in application determined by method of interpretation has been, and will continue to be dramatic. To begin with, A literal interpretation of Scripture will usually result in a very limited use of church discipline. Church discipline in the GHH realm will usually, and primarily, be applied to Parishioners Gone Wild. But in the RHH realm where the interpretation of every verse of Scripture is redemptive, church discipline will be seen to have a redemptive purpose. And as we know, the goal of redemption is to redeem us from sin, right? So, instead of church discipline being seen as a practical, judicial type process to keep order in the church, RHH leaders will see it more as a process to save us from any and every sin, since we were saved by the gospel, and are still being saved by the gospel everyday. In antithesis, GHH leaders will not see church discipline as a means of tweaking the saints in the same way Bible study and one on one discipleship does; but to the contrary, RHH leaders will see church discipline as a tool for fine tuning the saints. The result? Leaders Gone Wild.
I don’t even know where to begin to document the madness. There are a lot of Poodles driving out there. Instead of specific guidelines for specific categories of situations within the church; now, the failure to obey any, and every biblical imperative is game for church discipline. And remember, the goal is redemptive, so a mere verbal repentance that a literal interpretation would suggest will not suffice. More than likely, the discipline will be a protracted counseling situation (they use Galatians 6:1 for this) in which you will be in the discipline process (and not free to vacate membership) until you are released from counseling. As a matter of fact, in many reformed churches (including some reformed Southern Baptist Churches), when you enter into counseling with a pastor or leader, you are automatically considered to be in the redemptive church disciple process. I know of a case where an individual was meeting an elder for breakfast / discipleship every week. At some point, the parishioner took a job out of state, but was told by the elder that he was not free to leave the church because of struggles that were discovered in his life while those meetings were taking place. To leave the church at that time would have been the equivalent of leaving the church while under church discipline, according to the elder. This is by no means an isolated incident. Many, many parishioners have been under church discipline in the past without knowing it because their counseling turned out well, while others find out that “heavy counseling” and church discipline are the same thing.
Furthermore, as more and more Southern Baptist leaders continue to tag along from Reformed Light to New Calvinism, we have Southern Baptist churches bringing parishioners up on church discipline for non-attendance, not tithing, questioning doctrine, and just about anything else that falls short of holy perfection. It is unclear as to whether some implement a “process” view of the actual discipline or a “repentance” view.
What we do have, is a scary coalition of Southern Baptist leaders joining with barking Poodles and driving Poodles to supposedly stand for the gospel (T4G: Together for the Gospel [but what gospel?] ). Their new pastor-buddy club consists of those who hold to the GHH (MacArthur [I think, anyway] ), and several Poodles driving. As their doctrine (the driving Poodles) reeks havoc among God’s people in many other categories besides unbiblical church discipline, Al Mohler, MacArthur, and others continue to hang out with them in conferences to oppose the likes of Joel Osteen, who is supposedly a bigger threat to the well-being of God’s people than the Christian mystics that they give creditability to. However, as one example, I would be willing to bet anything that the divorce rate in Osteen’s church could not touch that of churches that hold to New Calvinism, which are experiencing exploding divorce numbers due to there view of divorce from a “redemptive” perspective.
I conclude with two observations:
1. The SBC is already on life support, we don’t need Dr. Kevorkian presiding.
2. Any SB or Reformed saints looking for a new church home need to be privy in regard to the Poodles running any given church; do they just bark, or do they drive?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments