Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy: Part 1, The Australian Forum and Seventh-Day Adventist Connection
It’s always been a bit perplexing to me. When you survey the Gospel-Driven, Gospel Sanctification landscape of our day that includes the T4G, Gospel Coalition, and a massive network of churches, the author of choice for their interpretive prism seems to be Graeme Goldsworthy (hereafter “GG”), an obscure, Anglican theologian from Australia.
As I said, “perplexing.” Until yesterday. While researching, I stumbled across an article written by a Christopher Taylor entitled, “Who is Bill Blogsmith?” Taylor (who I am attempting to contact for an interview) wrote the following:
“In the 1970’s a pair of Australian professors and pastors in the Anglican Church toured the world as the Australian Forum. This touring group went everywhere they were invited and preached the Word as best they could, with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding. As weeks go by I’ll be repeating and expanding on themes of this group, but you can read their thoughts in Present Truth Magazine which is online for free.
Robert Brinsmead became apostate and is sadly teaching rank heresy and frankly non-Christian beliefs. Geoffrey Paxton, the better speaker of the two, has dropped out of sight and I have lost track of him. But when they were the Australian Forum, they spoke God’s honest truth with power, conviction, and a powerful drive. Their humble efforts have shaped the thoughts and ideas of a new generation of theologians such as Rod Rosenbladt and Michael Horton.”
First, does, “….with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding” sound familiar? Secondly, though these guys are from Australia and were preaching in the nineteen-seventies, Robert Brinsmead is often quoted by the super-hip, who’s who of the Gospel Sanctification movement (hereafter “GS” and also known as New Calvinism—has deep roots in Sonship Theology). That’s a very interesting connection: from Australia in the seventies, preaching a gospel-centered sanctification—to playing a part in the latest rendition. Third, the author claims that this forum “shaped the thoughts and ideas” of a major player in the GS movement: Michael Horton. Fourthly, Isn’t GG from Australia? And isn’t he also an Anglican? Hmmmm.
Now GG isn’t looking so obscure, but the plot thickens. Wikipedia has this to say about the Paxton / Brinsmead relationship:
“Paxton has had significant interaction with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and a ‘keen interest’ in its theology.This began through his acquaintance with Robert Brinsmead, as both were critical of the charismatic movement.One source described the pair as “anti-Charismatic crusaders” after one meeting.They held public meetings supporting belief in justification by faith alone. Paxton contributed to Brinsmead’s Present Truth Magazine.”
Not only did Brinsmead and Paxton share a distaste for Charismatic theology, but they worked together, along with GG, in an endeavor to reform the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination (hereafter SDA) by primarily arguing the following along with other SDA theologians (like Desmond Ford): the SDA theologians of old held to the Reformed view of sanctification, and the SDA needed to return to their reformation roots. Hence, Brinsmead, Paxton, and GG were hyper-enamored by Reformed confessions and creeds. At times, to some, it seemed like the threesome gave those documents more credence than Scripture. Sound familiar? I have no idea what compelled these three to enter the SDA fray—perhaps my continued research will offer a theory on that. But the primary purpose of Present Truth magazine was to aid the threesome in the aforementioned endeavor. Another writer stated it this way in the comment section of a forum:
“Most, if not all, the magazine articles available on that site in pdf form date from the 1970s and 1980s and appeared in the printed editions that were available free of charge to anyone who asked, thanks to the generous financial support of Robert Brinsmead, who was a successful Californian avocado grower and was seeking to reform Adventism. Brinsmead himself wrote many of the articles, but many others were written by Rev. Geoffrey Paxton, a ‘conservative’ Anglican priest who taught at Queensland Bible Institute in Australia. Listed as a Consulting Editor was another ‘conservative’ Anglican priest, Rev. Dr. Graeme Goldsworthy, who also taught at QBI and later taught at Moore
Theological College in Sydney (the official theological institution of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney); I do not recall whether Goldsworthy wrote for the magazine or was merely a consultant. (Paxton wrote The Shaking of Adventism, and Goldsworthy is the author of several books.) I do not recall any pro-Adventist views being promoted in the magazines.
Their purpose was to promote what they saw as the truly Protestant view of salvation, which had been corrupted not merely by Adventists but by many other “Protestants” – even so-called ‘evangelical’ ones.”
GG, in fact, did write many of the articles. Furthermore, the very close kinship of beliefs between GG, Paxton, and Brinsmead can be seen by the fact that they reference each other in Present Truth articles. In particular, GG referenced (for agreement purposes) an article written by Paxton in which he wrote that Christians are NOT “born again.” Sound familiar? By the way, Paxton was dismissed from a teaching position for, as Desmond Ford puts it, “his refusal to lay aside his interest in the Adventist ‘cult’” (“The Truth of Paxton’s Thesis” by Desmond Ford. Spectrum 9:3 July 1978).
Now, in regard to the articles in Present Truth and their agreement with Gospel Sanctification—I would like to say that there are no words to describe the uncanny dittolarities, so I will use examples: it would be like distinguishing between two twin penguins; it would be like distinguishing between two capital Ts; It would be like distinguishing between John Piper’s opinions and Justin Taylor’s opinions. It’s the same stuff, and in mass volumes.
Moreover, I was surprised to see that Jon Zens, a primary figure in the development of New Covenant Theology (a GS tenet), also wrote at least one article for Present Truth as well.
A lot more research needs to done which will be reflected in part 2 and other articles following, but it would appear that the Australian Forum preceded Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology. The Australian Forum may, or may not be, the cradle of GS theology. So far, we see a road; some parts wide and well paved, and other parts narrow, from the Forum Trio in Australia, to Michael Horton and others at Westminster (probably one being Edmund Clowney). Then to others at Westminster as well; namely, Jack Miller, and Tim Keller. From them, to David Powlison, Paul Tripp, and Timothy Lane. How Sonship then became Gospel Sanctification is sketchy, but should be easy to figure out in time. Let me further bolster this a little bit by quoting a pastor who graduated from Westminster with a MDiv:
“Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary, came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller, rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF, entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL).
If you want a taste of Sonship theology you can find it in Gospel Transformation put out by World Harvest Ministries; Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller; or A Faith Worth Sharing by C. John Miller.”
In the forthcoming parts, I will compare the Australian Forum’s theology with GS/ Sonship. Is it the cradle of GS, or just another stop along the way? Did this trio create a doctrine designed to refute Charismaticism and Adventism without properly regarding the truth? What does the rest of the family tree look like? Lord willing, we will find out.
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
New Calvinist Leaders Now Worshipping Each Other—Dead or Alive
I know I start a lot of articles this way, but I can’t say it enough: foul doctrine yields bad results. Before I get to the information that prompted this post (sent by a reader), what do I mean by “New Calvinism”? NC is a massive movement (supposedly a new reformation) sweeping across the world like a giant tsunami. It encompasses Sonship Theology, Gospel Sanctification, New Covenant Theology, Christian Hedonism, Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics, and Heart Theology. The movement has totally rewritten orthodox Christianity, and soon (if not already the case), considering seminary graduates for ministry in the local church will be a prohibitive risk. Dumbed-down congregants by the masses are ever-waiting with bated breath for the next profound unction to proceed from the mouths of New Calvinist gods. John Piper, who often writes and says outrageously unorthodox things—has over 300,000 followers on Twitter. One wonders if Christianity has ever been inflicted with such a large percentage of koolaholics, as others stand aghast and bewildered regarding the growth of this movement.
The leaders of this movement realize more and more that they can get away with saying and doing anything, and at times seem to be amused themselves at what they get a pass on. Hence, they now worship each other openly—dead or alive. Recently, a group of New Calvinist leaders wrote a book of essays for the purpose of praising John Piper. One of the authors that contributed to the book was none other than John MacArthur Jr. He also wrote a glowing forward in a book written by Piper that was full of outlandish statements. The essay book was presented to Piper at a conference (as a surprise) by his fawning protégé, Justin Taylor. Yes, they wanted to sing his praises—apparently for his great service to Christianity in developing a theology called “Christian Hedonism.” No, it isn’t a dream.
So then, no surprise that Chad Bresson, radio personality and elder at Clearcreek Chapel (a well known and respected church in the NC network), held a tribute to Geerhardus Vos at his grave. Geerhardus Vos is the supposed father of Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutics, a tenet of New Calvinism. But not really, the hermeneutic was developed by a liberal theologian in the eighteenth century—Vos supposedly redeveloped the hermeneutic and took it in a more conservative direction. He developed the hermeneutic into the very orthodox sounding name of “Biblical Theology” which is anything but. “Biblical Theology” was the theme of this year’s Gospel Coalition convention. Per the usual deception of the movement, the term “Redemptive-Historical” was rarely used, if at all because “Biblical Theology” sounds, well, “biblical.”
Bresson brazenly posted photographs of the tribute on his FaceBook page, but why not? After all—who’s going to call him on it? The photograph below shows Bresson reading writings by Vos graveside. One of the comments on his FB page in reference to the pictures said the following: “Standing in the midst of the obvious decay that is the hallmark of the already, speaks of the inbreaking ‘not yet’ through lumped throat and wet eyes.” Creepy, no?
Though I would be amiss not to mention the contrast between this behavior from New Calvinist gods and their supposedly everything Jesus theology, the fact of the matter is, they get a pass on all their hypocrisy, contradictions, and doublespeak as well. As Bresson has written or said on many occasions, he has a major problem with the belief that there is a future for national Israel because that’s eclipsing Christ with a sliver of geography. Apparently, it’s alright to do that if one of the gods of New Calvinism is under the sliver.
paul
I’m Not Kidding—That’s What He Said
A reader sent me a manuscript from the 2011 John Bunyan Conference in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Basically, the yearly event is a New Covenant Theology love-fest. This year’s conference had many of the who’s who of NCT including John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel. NCT is a tenet of Gospel Sanctification which was mothered by Sonship Theology. NCT, like GS’s other tenets, was developed to bolster Sonship. The two, GS and NCT, go hand in hand. Determined to hold fast to the concept of being sanctified by the same gospel that saves us, advocates have been hard at work since 1980 (approx.) to make the rest of the Bible fit with the aforementioned concept. The result is the following: NCT, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and a gospel-centered hermeneutic borrowed from Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics—invented by liberal theologian Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826).
The manuscript was the text of one of the speakers, Chad Bresson—radio personality and elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Clearcreek Chapel considers themselves a NCT church (according to another elder there, Dale Evans), and their doctrine is the epitome of Gospel Sanctification. The reader who sent the manuscript referred to Bresson as the “Golden Boy of Gospel Sanctification” in central Ohio. Gagingly, I would have to agree. The opening line of the manuscript, a twenty-nine page linguistic drone, finally surpasses the outrageous absurdity of Bresson’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” in which he creepily / cultishly suggested that the original sin in the garden was not disobedience, but the sin of not submitting to the authority of teachers/ elders. But truly, his thesis and opening line on this one takes the cake:
“Stephen was killed for preaching New Covenant Theology.” I’m not kidding—that’s what he said. I can just see him opening his message (after a silent pause) with this, supposedly, profound capture. First of all, nobody denies that NCT is a recent creation. Richard Barcellos, in his excellent critique of NCT, “In Defense Of The Decalogue,” voiced concern in the book’s preface that the movement was still in its developmental stages, and therefore, difficult to evaluate. That was in 2001. Bresson’s thesis is therefore indicative of NCT’s extreme arrogance—they are supposedly the gatekeepers of this newfound truth some two-thousand years later, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who they think would stone them today. This is why an us against them mentality saturates many GS / Sonship / NCT churches.
After suffering through about twelve pages of the obituary-like document, a few statements begged attention that somehow fail to alarm Christians of our day. First, that the New Covenant abrogated the law, and that all former covenants were cancelled by the NC as well. Of course, as Barcellos points out in his book, the first point blatantly contradicts Jeremiah 31:33, Matthew 5:17, and Romans 3:31. As far as the second point that caught my attention like a penguin singing “I Just Gotta Be Me” in the midst of the flock, it blatantly contradicts Ephesians 2: 11,12 where Paul likens the unregenerate to those “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants [PLURAL NOT SINGULAR] of promise.” Furthermore, Paul then cites an excerpt from the Decalogue to make a point in Ephesians 6:1-3 making it clear that the “promise” thereof still applies to us today. All of the gallons of ink spilled by Bresson will not stand against these few verses of Scripture—truth does not bow to a myriad of words.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 12: The Creepiness Continues to Get Creepier
Not only is the GS / Sonship doctrine completely off the tracks theologically, it is inevitable that such doctrine will lead to many other things that followers “are not yet ready for.” However, as this hideous doctrine grows, for the most part, unchecked—proponents are now presenting teachings that would have been rejected out of hand a couple of years ago. In other words, probably surprised themselves by the lack of contention against their ridiculous doctrine—they are becoming more bold. For example, more and more, the GS concept of learning how to listen to a sermon is becoming more prevalent. Yesterday, a reader sent me two links.
First of all, the thesis itself is just plain creepy and should raise red flags all over the place. I became aware of it three years ago when I obtained a manuscript from a parishioner at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio, a bastion of GS / Sonship teachings and a NANC training center. As I carried the manuscript from place to place while I was slowly absorbing it, whether in the waiting room of my auto mechanic, or waiting for food at the local diner—the title caught the attention of many, and the following was usually the result: “Huh?” “That’s just really strange,” etc. In fact, one proponent wrote in one of the links sent to me, “I was first alerted to this issue by Christopher Ash’s leaflet entitled ‘Listen Up’. In it he claims that there’s been nothing written on the issue in the last 200 years.” Yep, I’m not really surprised by that. Nor was any reference given as to who supposedly wrote about it even then—go figure.
So what’s behind this creepy concept? I will use the manuscript from Clearcreek Chapel (hereafter: CCC) because it was one of the first independent sovereign grace churches in this country to adopt the Sonship doctrine. Not only that, CCC is a well respected and noted church in the movement. Paul David Tripp (speaks there often), David Powlison, and John Piper have close association with CCC, and the Pastor prides himself as a follower of John Piper—dressing like him and speaking like him as well. As far back as 1994 or 96, when the movement was barley fifteen years old, one or two respected Sonshippers (of course, nobody at CCC was aware of the doctrine) in the CCC congregation were instrumental in having the likes of Jerry Brides and DA Carson invited to speak there. I sat in the congregation myself and heard Jerry Bridges say: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” The comment gave me pause, but I brushed it aside and continued to struggle to stay awake as I thought the guy would die standing there behind the pulpit at any moment. When the founding pastor moved to California, Russ Kennedy became pastor under false pretence—knowing grade-A-well that the vast majority of CCC parishioners would reject such a doctrine. In fact, Kennedy allowed me to be instrumental in his appointment while knowing that such a doctrine would cause me to jump in the river.
I will be writing a post in this series about CCC because it is a projected model of what churches will look like in the future who implement this doctrine. And it is also why I am using their model for this whole learning how to listen to a sermon concept which is eerily similar to Jack Hyle’s famous quote: “Now I want you to close your Bibles and listen to me.” Most of what I have written on this blog concerns the doctrine itself, but the subtle creepiness / cult-like elements of this movement is another story altogether. But without further ado, let us examine the GS / Sonship take on how to listen to a sermon. Actually, I have written on the crux of this concept before. What really drives this issue? Answer: elder authority. GS / Sonship has a very overemphasized view of elder authority and that is really at the heart of this concept. Devon Berry, the “elder” at CCC who delivered this message, is also one of the primary instructors for the NANC training center at CCC. The following is my critique of his message. I apologize for how difficult it is to unravel this clever twisting of God’s word. However, if you try to follow my argument thoughtfully, I think by the end it will come together for you. The title of his message was, How to Listen to a Sermon:
In the sermon, the elder strays away from the main point to strongly emphasis the idea that spiritual growth comes primarily from preaching and teaching, and is an absolute, paramount necessity accordingly:
“You think, perhaps, that [you] can fill up the other half of the plate with personal study, devotions, or quiet times, or a radio program. Beloved, you cannot. Scripture is relatively quiet on such practices. But on preaching, the case is clear and strong. Neglect preaching and neglect your soul. I know that some are kept from services for legitimate reasons which are out of their control, but I doubt that is the case for most. I beseech you, change your ways for the good of this people and for the good of your own selves. Give the Word its rightful place. As I have often said, there is no better place you could be than here, under the preaching of the Word.”
Actually, I believe “devotions,” “quiet times,” and “radio programs” are added in to mask the disturbing part of this statement: “personal study.” Nowhere , but nowhere, does the Scriptures ever say that personal study is expendable when compared to preaching or teaching. In fact, IF I wanted to make the case that preaching and teaching could be done without, I would cite the following:
1 John 2:27
”As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him.”
This verse clearly teaches that when it gets right down to it, the indwelling Holy Spirit is our teacher, and that human teachers are not an absolute necessity as this elder is clearly saying. At the very least, he is in grave error concerning the level of importance between the two.
But even more disturbing is the logical conclusion that must be drawn from this assertion. If personal study is expendable (please note; in his list of examples, he names devotions, quiet times, and radio programs in the same list. One can only assume that if they are in the same list to make his point, they share the same level of importance. Surely then, no one would deny that Christians could do without radio programs or devotionals), then how could it (personal study) be sufficiently empowered to discern the truthfulness of the sermon? The conclusion must necessarily be that personal interpretation is always at the mercy of preaching. Do you think my statement is a subjective conclusion in regard to what he is saying? Think again. He actually uses Acts 17:10,11 (a text that clearly states the importance of personal study to confirm truthfulness) to imply that preaching is a critical link in the learning process, with personal study being secondary:
“In addition to coming with anticipation, we must come to a sermon prepared. Coming to the hearing of the Word prepared is both a matter of our hearts and our behaviors. I think the example of the Bereans in Acts 17 is helpful. Verse 11 says, ‘Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.’ We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ. What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it [he is not talking about a test in regard to the truth, but rather, a nebulous concept of testing the Christocentric interpretation in everyday life. He covers this idea in another part of the same sermon. Note that “it” in his statement refers to God’s word, not Paul’s preaching]. The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word. The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching. So a good preparation for the public preaching of the Word is the private consumption of the Word. It will be the seasoning that brings out the flavor – salt on your French fries, if you will.”
Where to begin in the unraveling of this hideous twisting of God’s word! First of all, I had to actually draw a diagram to unravel what he is saying in regard to this part of the quote:
“Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word.”
Read the quote carefully. Think about it. God’s word goes through the “preacher” first, before getting to the “people,” making the preacher’s words synonymous with God’s words. Also note that he cites 17:1,2:
“We can note from earlier in the chapter what exactly it was the Bereans were responding to – verses 2-3 tell us that Paul’s pattern was to reason with his hearers from the Scriptures, explaining and proving that Jesus was the Christ.”
Let me cut to the chase here: what he is saying is that all Christocentric and gospel-centered preaching is infallible. Hence, any preacher teaching from a Christocentric perspective is also infallible. He also emphasizes this in his conclusion (emphasis mine):
“On to our last point, then. It is simple. The lens set forth by Christ himself on the road to Emmaus, in Luke 24, is the lens through which we should hear every sermon. Here it is from the text: …everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled… You should always listen to a sermon looking for Christ and the redemptive plan that God has set out in history to accomplish through his Son. We must be Christ-centered listeners.”
In other words, when the Scriptures are being taught from the Christ / gospel perspective, error is impossible, and likewise, neither can the preacher teaching from that perspective be in error as well. If the mere intention is to present Christ from the text, the Holy Spirit then becomes involved, making error impossible. Another elder at the same church (Chad Bresson) projected this same idea in an article entitled “The Word of God is a Person.” He quotes Robert Brinsmead to make his point:
“That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture.”
Said another way, the Holy Spirit “lives in the gospel,” so when your doin’ gospel, your doin’ truth, end of discussion.
Going back now to the elder’s use of Acts 17 and the original sermon of interests here, he completely ignores any sort of basic grammatical rules at all to draw his conclusions. He gives the following reasons for the nobility of the Bereans:
“What made the Jews in Berea more noble than the Jews in Thessalonica? Well for one, they did not run Paul out of town, and secondly, they took Paul’s preaching seriously enough to go to the Word to test it.”
But the excerpt he speaks of is a compound sentence:
“Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”
In a compound sentence the ideas must be related, this is a hard-fast rule. Therefore, the specific reason for their nobility is obviously in the second independent clause, which does not include anything mentioned by the elder. Furthermore, in the second clause, the proving of what Paul taught is obviously the (purpose) object of both verb phrases, both directly and indirectly. Clearly, the reason for their nobility was the fact that they proved what Paul was teaching to be true through personal study. Not only that, the elder also said the following:
“An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.”
But this is clearly an improper correlation. “Daily” in this sentence refers to “examining the Scriptures” and not Paul’s preaching (which is not even in the compound sentence which begins with “now“—introducing a separate idea). The elder is suggesting an inseparable correlation (“cycle”) between preaching and personal study that cannot be separated from the word for proper understanding. Instead of personal study proving the truthfulness of preaching or teaching, he is making preaching an absolute necessity to understanding truth, with personal study supplying a mere “seasoning” to the preaching, instead of testing its truthfulness. Besides this, he also assumes that the Bereans knew what Paul was going to teach before he came:
“The Bereans eagerly prepared by paralleling their own Bible reading and study with Paul’s preaching.”
Not only is this an assumption, given the technology of the time, it is also highly unlikely. What tense in the text even remotely suggests that the Bereans “examined” the Scriptures before Paul preached? Clearly, the intent of this elder is to discourage a proving of truthfulness in regard to Chrisocentric preaching after the fact, but rather a prior, personal study that merely “flavors” the preaching instead of proving its truthfulness. At any rate, it is a complete bastardization of the biblical text.
I might also mention that another elder in this same church, and previously mentioned, preached a sermon entitled “Adam’s Insurrection, Man Jettisons God from the Educational Process,” in which he argues that the essence of Adam’s fall was a rejection of Christocentric teaching that was outside of himself (Adam). The theme of that sermon seems to be similar to the sermon that is the subject of this post; namely, and at the very least, it strongly discouraged a mentality that elevates personal discernment to the same level of teaching outside of ourselves.
So, it now begs the question that is the subject of this post; in regard to elders teaching from the Christocentric perspective, does Christocentric theology teach that they are infallible? I suspect that this belief is more than likely to be prominent among churches that hold to Sonship / GS theology.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
11 comments