Horton’s Systematic Theology Adds To The Sonship/Gospel Sanctification Massive Subculture: Revised
[NOTE: This was written before I discovered that New Calvinism is in fact the same gospel that the Reformers taught. The resurgence movement began as COG in 1970, became Sonship circa 1986, Gospel Transformation in 2000, dubbed Gospel Sanctification by detractors in 2007, and finally New Calvinism in 2008. This was also written before I understood that orthodoxy is a part of spiritual caste in general].
“Gospel Sanctification, as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity” [Note also that I no longer equate “orthodoxy ” with truth per se].
[Further revision: much has been learned since this post, but the general idea is very accurate: the Neo-Calvinist movement is seeking to develop a subculture within American culture that will eventually, if all goes as planned, devour American culture as we know it. This is part and parcel with Calvinism’s dominion theology. This post submits a sketchy framework of useful categories under the general idea. For instance, one college that focuses strictly on the Neo-Calvinist vision is a far cry from the fact that this movement owns (in an intellectual capacity) most of the seminaries in America. Other categories could be added as well, e.g., Christian publishing ].
The Fix is now in. The false doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology about thirty years ago—now has its own theology, hermeneutic, practical application, defined experience, ecumenical (inclusiveness) movement, history, college, counseling organization, missionary organization, Bible—and now, its own systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification (GS), as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity. It won’t be long; those who we minister to will have to be deprogrammed before we can help them, starting with convincing them that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from God as our authority for ministry and life. Not understanding GS beforehand will make any attempt to help people with the word of God—dead on arrival.
GS Theology
The movement started with a very powerful concept in the minds of its perpetrators. Supposedly, we grow spiritually by revisiting the gospel that saved us every day. Proponents were convinced (and still are) that this thesis stands alone as truth; therefore, all other propositions must bow to it.
The GS Hermeneutic
A literal interpretation of Scripture will continually contradict GS. So, the proponents have changed how we read/ interpret the Bible accordingly. The GS hermeneutic is an interpretive prism that will always yield results that make GS plausible. Unlike the rest of the elements (which are very contemporary), the hermeneutic (known as Biblical Theology or Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics) was borrowed from times past. It originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writings of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Graeme Goldsworthy tweaked the doctrine to facilitate COG, and today, Goldsworthy’s “Trilogy” is the pillar of interpretation within the movement.
Practical Application
The GS narrow approach to sanctification must be embellished and applicable to life in some way in order to be sold. This is Heart Theology, and was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary. In 1996, two former students of Powlison articulated Heart Theology in a book entitled, “How People Change.”
Defined Experience
John Piper seeks to articulate how Sonship is experienced via Christian Hedonism. Because GS makes our works and the work of the Spirit an either/or issue, someone needed to develop a thesis that explained how the difference can be ascertained. John Piper answered the call with the development of Christian Hedonism.
Ecumenical Bent
GS now encompasses any group that agrees with its primary view of plenary monergism and the synthesis of justification and sanctification. All other disciplines are seen as secondary and irrelevant to fellowship and joint ventures. The Gospel Coalition (holding national conferences on odd years, 2011, etc.), and T4G (Together For The Gospel, holding national conferences on even years) work together to promote GS/S while promoting inclusiveness among denominations and religions.
History
GS proponents claim a historical precedent dating back to Creation, and also claim to be the second part of the first Reformation. Of course, this is laughable. Sonship, the Antioch school, TGC, T4G, NCT, CH, and HT have no historical precedent prior to 1970. Many of the notable proponents of GS are associated in some way with the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Tim Keller and David Powlison were followers of Miller. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane are followers of David Powlison. Jerry Bridges attributes his view of the gospel to Miller as well.
College
The Antioch School of leadership training has GS as its foundation and basis for training. It is located in Ames, Iowa.
Counseling Organization
The upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition, which seeks to network other counseling organizations as well, is intimately associated with T4G and The Gospel Coalition. The who’s who of Gospel Sanctification sit on its governing board including David Powlison and Paul David Tripp.
Missionary Organization
It’s primary missionary organization was founded by the father of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship—Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Banner of Truth states the following in The Movement Called Sonship: “Miller encouraged New Life Presbyterian Church into originating the ‘World Harvest Mission’, a non-denominational missionary organization. Sonship became its main teaching vehicle.”
Bible
The English Standard Version (ESV) was first published by Crossway in 2001. Its vice president of editorial is Justin Taylor who also authors The Gospel Coalition Blog, the multimedia propaganda machine for GS doctrine. One of the translators was Wayne Grudem, also well known as a major proponent of GS doctrine. The ESV’s GS connection has made it the most purchased English Bible in the past ten years. The latest promotion of the ESV by Crossway, “Trusted: Trusted Legacy [a whopping ten years]; trusted By Leaders; Trusted For Life,” features an endorsement by the who’s who of GS doctrine.
The Complete Fix
With Michael Horton’s recent publication of “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way” (2011), the total fix is in place. The GS machine will now begin to move forward—rewriting and re-forming orthodox Christianity. I confidently predict that Horton’s book will be widely used in seminaries nationwide. Seminary students will be pumped into the local churches with a skewered view of truth—but using all of the same terminology that was formally orthodox.
What Can Be Done?
This doctrine thrives on the fact that Christians are theologically dumbed-down. If most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification (and they don’t), they are helpless against this false doctrine. If most Christians don’t realize the importance of understanding hermeneutics (and they don’t), they are even more helpless. Local churches need to start in-doctrine–ating their people.
paul
A Plan for Saving Calvinism with “First Generation” Biblical Counseling
“But since I am a nice guy, I hereby propose a plan to save Calvinism with first generation biblical counseling.”
I have been getting emails that suggest the present-day Neo-Calvinist movement has peaked, is imploding, and will soon be on the decline. This would be a repeat of history. The only problem is, what is left behind of the authentic Reformation still yields weak sanctification which leaves the door open for the authentic Reformation gospel to return.
This is because the Neo-Platonist political goal of the Reformation gospel sought to keep the masses under the one law of sin and death. The practical application of the Reformation gospel wasn’t a new method for interpreting the Bible, it was a new method for interpreting reality itself through the redemptive works of Christ. Man lives in the shadows of the true forms; Jesus Christ and His works. Reality is a gospel metaphysical narrative that glorifies God through the history of sinful man, and every event is completely pre-authored by God’s pen down to the smallest detail.
This isn’t a natural way to interpret reality or literature, and as history moved further away from Calvin’s Geneva, Christians began to gravitate more and more towards a grammatical interpretation of Scripture. This made Christians more than mere characters in a prewritten metaphysical narrative, and spawned the antinomian controversies throughout church history.
Even though the European idea of living a preordained life of slavery under preordained masters was eventually rejected in America, the significance of that idea in regard to the European gospel has never been fully dealt with. There has never been a complete reevaluation of the foundations laid by the Reformation regardless of its abhorrent historical fruit.
In 1970, the American church was languishing in anemic sanctification after the first gospel wave of the 50’s and 60’s produced massive converts with very little power in the Christian life to show for it. Christianity had few answers for life’s difficult questions. Billy Graham saved you, and Oprah Winfrey counseled you. Even in our day, a disciple of Winfrey’s, Dr. Phil McGraw, helps people with real-life problems more than the institutional church would ever dream of.
And what is the church’s Neo-Calvinist answer to that? “It’s not about your life, it’s about Jesus.” “It’s not about anything you do, it’s about what Jesus did.” “Is the gospel about Jesus, or your Spirit-filled life?” “We preach the gospel, we don’t try to be the gospel.” And yes, that was the answer for concerns raised in the 70’s about powerless Christianity. You see, supposedly, what little bit of sanctification and practical application that was being practiced at the time was the problem. The first gospel wave circa 1950-1970 was strong on getting people saved and emphasized sanctification little; the Neo-Calvinist gospel wave came along and said, for all practical purposes, that sanctification is not needed at all—what we need is more Jesus—“Jesus is our sanctification.” “Sanctification isn’t you—it’s Jesus.”
In the same year that the Reformed lager once again came to save Protestant Light, 1970, a Presbyterian by the name of Jay Adams ignited the biblical counseling movement with the groundbreaking and controversial book, “Competent to Counsel.” In my opinion, being a part of the movement during its peak in the 90’s, it was one of the true revivals in church history that was strictly a church affair minus European political intrigue, if not the only one.
The reason for this is simple: Adams focused on walking in the Spirit. This wasn’t a walking in the Spirit that prescribed working hard at gospel contemplationism, this was a walking in the Spirit that prescribed learning and hard work on the part of God’s people with the Holy Spirit as counselor and helper. Adams separated justification and sanctification, and claimed that the power for Christian living came from the new birth, not justification. The cross saves you, but it doesn’t sanctify you. The resurrection sanctifies you.
There is only one reason for being sanctified by justification: Christians remain under the law of sin and death. Hence, the cross must continue to save us from that law—more cross. Adams prescribed walking in the law of the Spirit of life, and rejected the idea that the law of the Spirit operated in the power of the cross; Adams insisted that obedience to the law of the Spirit of life was a colaboring between us and the Spirit who raised Christ from the grave.
And the Neo-Calvinist resurgence went to war against Adams and won. Adams’ primary nemesis was the propagators of Sonship theology who are alive and well in the present-day Neo-Calvinist movement and own 95% of all biblical counseling. Adams’ Institute for Nouthetic Studies is the last vestige of the revival standing, and is unfortunately staffed with some who want to be friends with both camps even though at issue is the very gospel of Jesus Christ—because the crux is, are we still under law, OR under grace and the law of the Spirit of life?
Though the “second generation” counseling movement has managed to stay clear of the ongoing implosion, they are in the Neo-Calvinist camp and if history repeats itself, and that is what seems to be happening, they will likewise die the same social death that monergistic substitutionary sanctification always dies. That is, unless it can get in bed with the government and compel its orthodoxy by force, but historically, that only buys it some additional time prior to its inevitable demise.
But since I am a nice guy, I hereby propose a plan to save Calvinism with first generation biblical counseling. It is said of Adams’ first generation biblical counseling that it is to be commended for paving the way and laying a foundation, but now the “second generation” of biblical counseling is the real solution. Oh really? They have been running the show completely for twenty years now in the American church, and are we better off? Hardly! They have created mediating organizations that keep churches out of court, or at least try to, as a solution for cleaning up the bad fruit that their false gospel has created. When in American history have we ever needed mediating organizations to keep Christians from suing the institutional church? 2009 brought a nuclear explosion of discernment blogs, not against the familiar isms of church history, but against the same old spiritual tyranny that this doctrine has produced for over 500 years leading to its own periodic social deaths.
The key to saving Calvinism in all of this is the general ignorance and doctrinal illiteracy that has always been part of Calvin’s tyranny. As the framers of our constitution stated, an informed people is a free people. Calvinists can now use this ignorance to save the movement, and take credit for the future fruits born by instructing people to walk in the Spirit of life through obedience to everything Christ has commanded.
Because we Christians are generally stupid, the same ploy used by David Powlison (one of the forefathers of second generation biblical counseling) against Jay Adams can now be employed to save Calvinism. On the one hand, Powlison et al call Adams a Pharisee, but on the other, they commend him for laying the foundation of biblical counseling, by far the most formidable catalyst for Neo-Calvinism in our day. In the same way, since God’s people have apparently bought into this oxymoron of helpful flawed foundations and false premises that bear good fruit, the same could be said of Calvin.
Yes, even though Calvin kept God’s people under the law of sin and death, it could be said of him, “Well, Calvinists don’t believe everything Calvin believed.” I know, it’s stupid, but hey, it works. In our day, it enables folks to call Jay Adams a Pharisee while at the same time commending him. And David Powlison is so nuanced in what he says, if he slithers back into first generation counseling, no one will know the difference.
Hence, a return to the real revival of the 90’s, while giving Calvin all the credit. Hey, people also buy into all of this Old Calvinist/New Calvinist stuff; Tullian Tchividjian could be labeled the father of New Calvinism and all of the blame for misunderstanding Calvin could be placed on him. There is already a head start on that play. I am telling you, this plan is coming together in my mind and is examplitory of my compassion for Calvinists. After all, we are all just sinners saved by grace.
Now, what would this new plan, “look like.” Well, it would look like Calvinists standing around a bonfire holding hands on a clear summer night, actually, a book burning, while singing… “trust and obey, for there is no other way to be happy in Jesus…trust and obey.”
paul
The Biblical Counseling Wars: A Very Simple Understanding
Unfortunately, if you are a Christian who needs counseling, you will go to the first “biblical” counselor that happens to be in your neck of the woods, or said another way: in your particular church venue. The grammatical Calvinist, Dr. Jay Adams, exposed the folly of doing that in the secular realm because psychology is based on 200, count them, 200 different theories. Likewise, it is the same folly to go to a counselor just because he/she is “biblical.” All psychologists are not simply “psychologists,” there are different kinds with different world views. If you are going to a counselor I understand that you are going for advice, but shouldn’t it be a counselor who interprets reality in a way that you deem sane? Or by your own admission, are you completely insane? And if you are, which counselor has the correct view of reality? You can’t know; you are insane. Good luck with that.
But there is good news! In all of the controversy running amuck in the biblical counseling wars, it boils down to this and this only: two gospels. Yes, t-w-o (2) g-o-s-p-e-l-s. It’s that simple. One states that salvation (justification) is a finished work. The other states that salvation is not a finished work, that sanctification is the progression of justification and is powered by justification. “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Sound familiar?
Simply stated: sanctification by justification. And how were you justified? “By faith alone.” Right, so then, you are sanctified how? “That would be sanctification by faith alone.” Very good class. “Didn’t James have a problem with that?” Right. “But how do we distinguish grace from law?” One has works, the other doesn’t. “Huh”? Antinomian justification: good. Antinomian sanctification: bad. “Oh.”
Of course, the justification isn’t finished crowd would cry foul. “But of course we think there are works in sanctification!” Question is: whose works? This also distinguishes the two camps in regard to CHANGE. It is the difference between the titles of two books: “How to Help People Change,” and “How People Change.” One implies that people do change, the other implies change, but not necessarily a changed person. The latter teaches a mere invitation to “enter into the plot” of a gospel narrative. The former believes in the cause and effect of biblical obedience. It’s all Calvinist, but it is the difference between a grammatical interpretation of reality and a redemptive interpretation of reality. As stated by many “biblical” counselors: a literal view of Scripture denies the personhood of Christ and His salvific works in sanctification. Did you know that there are saving works in our sanctification?
I know I probably lost you with that paragraph, so let me boil it down for you: Do you believe that you can actually change with God’s HELP, or do you believe that you can only EXPERIENCE grace in the form of what Christ has already “supplied” for your sanctification?
See, that’s really easy. If you think you can really change, it’s A, if you think you can’t change, but can only experience grace manifested in an obedience already supplied, it’s B.
So why all of the confusion? Well, because unlike the characterization foisted on the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement, Dr. Jay Adams, he likes people waaaay too much. Once again in a recent article, he has to defend himself, which is utterly disgusting as few in the institutional church will defend this elderly saint against petulant snot-nosed bullies, and once again, Jay does not name names. Couple this with the fact that the movement is chock-full of leaders who care way more about losing friends (or connections) than the truth. Another name for this is Streetism.
Long gone for the most part is any decency in the movement. While sanctifying their attacks on Adams with a tacit recognition of his “first generation counseling” and how much is owed to him, they precede to attack him personally. Why? Because truth is powerful, even when yielded by one 80-something man, or for that matter a mere child. But more intimidating than anything is what “first generation” biblical counseling did for Christians en masse. That is a history that intimidates his detractors. The good accomplished in that movement that brought practical application of the Scriptures back to the church is deemed as doing nothing more than “making us better Pharisees.” Comments like these are often made by Jay’s “friends.”
If there was any real integrity in the movement, the most visible of its leaders would demand a stop to these attacks on Jay based on principle and under threat of separation regarding fellowship. But again, the truth is what they are afraid of. There is no easy money in it.
So what is the solution if you need counseling? That’s a tuff question. For certain, a false gospel will not help you, it will just make you feel better while making you a better antinomian. Jay’s organization is nouthetic.org, but he has a couple of people over there that are half-pregnant with the other gospel. I guess Jay can’t help but to love foxes even when they are in the henhouse. I would probably contact his organization, tell them you understand the big picture, and request a referral for a first generation purist who believes in real progressive sanctification. If they know of anyone other than Jay in any given geography, it would be great to have such a list to refer people to. The home fellowship movement, unfortunately, is a long way from having a counseling strategy.
paul
Why I am “Toxic”
I often observe myself. Do you do that? I think as Christians, we are conscious of what we do and say. That might surprise some readers here as I know it seems like I throw caution to the wind. That’s because you don’t see the stuff I edit out: “No, better not say that—too harsh.” Hey, just stop it; I believe there is such a thing as harshness.
This self-observation leads me at times to question why I do what I do. In this case, my resolve to NOT “let it go and move on with life.” Folks, unless there is reconciliation, nobody “forgives and forgets.” That’s just a fallacy—anybody who works with victims knows this. Who are the ones that you are unreconciled with? The Bible has a name for them; “enemies,” this would seem fairly evident. Granted, the Bible tells us how to relate to this category of relationship in our lives, and it is different from that of “brother.” And true, to some degree, the Bible instructs us to have a thick skin in matters of little consequence. This is often an issue of spiritual maturity.
Let me further this point a little. The letter of 2Thessalonians addressed a specific problem in the home fellowships of that geography. Because of errant eschatology, brothers had become idle in everyday work. Paul said to “warn them,” but to continue to treat them as brothers and not “enemies.” In other words, those who are unreconciled. The point can be made here that Matthew 18 is not a one size fits all situations.
I was once invited to write an article for a theological journal. However, the editing committee rejected the article based on issues with me personally; i.e., he is “toxic.” I wasn’t offended; after all, it’s true. But why am I “toxic”? I have figured it out. I think I have always known, but have never brought it to the forefront of my mind and highlighted it. And I think it sets me apart, for better or worse, from most evangelicals.
Simply stated: ONE person, or ONE family, is NOT expendable for the sake of unity. Salvation is not in an institution, salvation is in love. Love and unity within the institution is an excuse not to love anyone in particular. One saint is not expendable for the betterment or preservation of the whole; that’s Plato, not Jesus Christ the Lord.
This is where Reformed theology, which I detest as I learn more and more about it, separates us from our Jewish roots. There is a Jewish proverb that states,
He who saves one life, saves the world.
That’s my heart in a nutshell. Why? Because if one life is expendable, the whole world is expendable. If the happiness of one person is expendable, the happiness of the whole world is expendable. If one marriage is expendable, every marriage is expendable. And be sure of this: if justice for one person is expendable, justice for the whole is expendable as well. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between Plato and Jesus Christ. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between The Republic and the Bible. This is a fundamental philosophical difference between St. Augustine and the Jewish philosophers.
And this is the fundamental reason that the Biblical counseling movement of our day cannot help anyone and will not help anyone. In the beginning it did until the motto, “We are just producing better Pharisees” put an end to the “first generation” of biblical counseling. Now all they are doing is making us better Reformed Platonists. People that think they are being helped are just learning to detach themselves from the “flesh realm,” or in other words, this present life in totality. Plato despised human existence. The contemporary Reformed mindset in this country is simply producing funerals where there isn’t a wet eye in the place. I was at one just weeks ago. It was truly a time warp to the Stoicism that always placates the Reformed and masquerades as spiritual superiority.
What is more obvious in the present-day biblical counseling culture that the one marriage, one family, and one lamb are expendable for the preservation of the 99 [institution]? They are fooling themselves. They are utterly self-deceived; if you don’t care about one marriage, you don’t really care about any marriage save maybe your own. If one human life is expendable, any human life is expendable. If you have a bag of diamonds, you care not just a little if you lose one.
This is why I am “toxic” to many in the biblical counseling movement. The leaders of that movement celebrate St. Augustine who was an avowed Platonist. I only regret that little ole’ me has limited means in toxicity.
And for you other discernment bloggers out there, perhaps this post is defining for you. It may not be about you as much as you thought; it may be more about the idea that if they disregarded your wellbeing, they don’t regard anyone’s wellbeing.
While the biblical counseling movement claims to be the vanguards of the gospel, they know nothing of it. They peddle Calvin’s gospel of perpetual repentance for the maintaining of salvation that can only be found in the institutional church invented by St. Augustine. Hence, anyone that hinders the institution by demanding justice should not only be disregarded, but executed. Supposedly, the souls of “the group” depend on it. The souls of the “missional community.” While they hide this fact in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers, the biblical counseling community’s association with the likes of James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll are well known. These are men who speak fondly of contemporary Hindu Juggernauts that you are either on or getting run over by, and human catapults. Their only punishment is to be silently ostracized by those who share their sacred ideology.
That’s not love, that’s not speaking up for what’s right, and it’s not the gospel.
paul
This is Huge: “The Little Blue Christian That Could”; A Niche Market for Pithy Christian Truisms
Certainly, I will make millions with my discovery of a niche market among Christians. Whether on Facebook, in Christian bookstores, or the back bumper of a minivan, we see a constant parade of colorful placards that remind us of how pathetic we are as Christians. Ironically, pastors promote these placards to keep the sheep manageable, but then go to their Monday golf outings and whine about “10% of the parishioners doing 90% of the work.” Hey, there is a price to pay for being in control.
Today’s Christians remind me of my former stint as an installation manager for one of the largest security companies in the world. As a Christian manager, I was at first surprised by so much humbleness among the unregenerate. The technicians routinely touted themselves as the least among their peers, and constantly sang the praises of capable technicians other than themselves. I soon realized that this was a ploy to get out of doing the more difficult and challenging jobs. If you sent them on a difficult job, they would make you pay by going there and playing dumb. This would turn the whole day upside down for someone in my position. I eventually got around the problem by sending two or three technicians to do the job of one.
And let there be no doubt about it, this kind of laziness is at the core of much Christian humbleness in our day. Pastors are the worst offenders, claiming to be “unqualified” in helping people with the more difficult life problems. The way the “mentally ill” have been relegated to the closets of the church is the “scandalous gospel” indeed. It is having a form of godliness while denying the power of it.
These little jpeg posters that appear on Facebook are all the rage in our day and only represent totally depraved Christians. So, I am starting the Little Blue Christian That Could Productions. This, of course, is a tribute to the children’s story, “The Little Blue Engine That Could.” My niche market is the born again crowd. Here is what Wikipedia states about “The Little Blue Engine That Could”:
The Little Engine that Could is an illustrated children’s book that was first published in the United States of America in 1930 by Platt & Munk. The story is used to teach children the value of optimism and hard work. Based on a 2007 online poll, the National Education Association named the book one of its “Teachers’ Top 100 Books for Children.”
The story’s signature phrases such as “I think I can” first occurred in print in a 1902 article in a Swedish journal. An early published version of the story, “Story of the Engine that Thought It Could”, appeared in the New York Tribune, 8 April 1906, as part of a sermon by the Rev. Charles S. Wing.
Shazaam! This idea has Christian roots! This is huge! Therefore, I proudly unveil the very first pithy truisms of the Little Blue Christian That Could Productions:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment