A Discussion About Voddie
We don’t want to think that there is a demon behind every bush, but in our day, it’s probably true. In fact, the apostles seemed to say it would be.
Ray said, on February 22, 2012 at 12:59 am (Edit)
I’m hoping the leader in your fourth point you refer to is Voddie. I have been digesting all that I can from him and it seems that he is correctly expounding Biblical truth. Am I correct? If not, whom is it that you speak of and what do you think about Mr. Baucham?
paulspassingthoughts said, on February 22, 2012 at 9:20 am (Edit)
Ray,
Yes, I was speaking of Voddie. I haven’t rendered final judgement on him for my own consumption, but his take on father/daughter relationships is totally out to lunch. I mean, just out there. My wife, Susan, had a VERY close relationship with her father, and I have a VERY close relationship with my daughter. We discussed this–the guy is just dead wrong. First, he is calling on fathers to overcome their own consciences (uncomfortable feelings which surely include the conscience) to have a touching relationship with their daughters. He threw 1Cor 10:28-30 and Rom14:23 completely to the wind on this one. I mean, for crying out loud, at least mention it due to the fact that anything that is not done in faith is sin. I also find what is becoming known as the “lap-dance video” to be just downright creepy. Susan shared with me concerning an incident with her dad that occurred when she was 7. She attempted to crawl up on her dad’s lap and her dad stopped her and said, “No Susan, you are a big girl now. Big girls don’t sit on daddies lap.” AND did that effect their relationship? HARDLY! Till this day, he is her hero bar none save Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, and don’t miss this, the anti-pedophile folks have to be going totally nuts on this one. From Susan’s perspective, if uncle Willie wants her to sit on his lap she’s thinkin’ : “What a minute here, if daddy says that big girls don’t sit on laps, and I can’t sit on daddy’s lap–I sure aint’ sittin’ on uncle willies lap!” Furthermore, Susan brought up the following point that isn’t exactly an epiphany: “When you sit on a man’s lap, the girls thigh or behind is making a pressed contact with the man’s genitals.” Duh!
Baucham’s dead wrong on this one, and creepily so, and thinking back on the movie “Courageous,” I see this theme propagated there as well (the “cult of daddy” ?) I will stop here because more study is needed on this and I don’t want to speak out of school, and I stand ready to be corrected on this by those speaking to the subject at hand, but this is indicative of exactly what my point was in the post: teachers can look really good initially and suck you into “who knows what.” The guy is a hero in the church that Susan and I are visiting, and initially, he was looking super to me. In our day, Christians must learn to shoot first and ask questions later. We don’t want to think that there is a demon behind every bush, but in our day, it’s probably true. In fact, the apostles seemed to say it would be.
paul
Dear Sherwood Baptist Church, Let Me Clarify
Are you confused by the White Horse Inn’s criticism (White Horse Inn) of your new movie, “Courageous”? Let me clarify. The criticism is driven by a doctrine that is antithetical to traditional evangelicalism. It is a doctrine that is perhaps the most covert in church history, using all of the same terminology and lingo, but with a totally different approach to issues of justification and sanctification.
The movement, known as, “New Calvinism” has been “roper doping” evangelicals for the past twenty-one years. It was primarily developed by two men in the early seventies—Jon Zens and Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The doctrine they developed together split into two different directions under two different names: New Covenant Theology and The Centrality of the Objective Gospel.
Jon Zens tried to promote the doctrine in Reformed Baptist circles and met stiff resistance from Walter Chantry and others. Chantry rightly identified the doctrine as antinomianism. Antinomians don’t like the idea that Christians can play the robust role in sanctification as presented in your movie—especially as instructed from the word of God specifically. Chantry also wrote a book contending against the doctrine entitled “God’s Righteous Kingdom.” Chantry’s son wrote a defense of his father’s book against New Calvinist DA Carson who criticized the book because Jon Zens is New Calvinist family, though they don’t like to claim him because of his SDA connections. Of course, Carson was not honest about why he was really criticizing the book—just like White Horse Inn is not being honest about the criticism of your movie.
Robert Brinsmead propagated the doctrine in Presbyterian circles where it became known as Sonship Theology. But Presbyterians, most notably Jay E. Adams, also waged a spirited war against it. In fact, Adams also wrote a book to contend against the doctrine as well. The doctrine is banned in many Presbyterian churches. Its propagators therefore changed the label to “Gospel Transformation.” Gospel-driven this, gospel-centered that, gospel-you fill in the blank.
For ten years, few people realized the doctrine was the same as Sonship and NCT. In 2004, some people caught on and dubbed the movement “Gospel Sanctification.” Adams recently added a Gospel Sanctification archive to his blog and has said the doctrine is dangerous and must be stopped. Apparently, Reformed Baptists have not yet put two and two together on that one; probably because Jon Zens is no longer at the forefront of the movement and that’s who they identify as the center of the controversy.
In 2008, the movement was dubbed “New Calvinism.” Personally, I was never able to understand New Calvinism until I studied The Centrality of the Objective Gospel’s theological journal, Present Truth, later renamed, Verdict. Therefore, let me introduce you to the doctrine via Present Truth volume 16, article 13:
The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification. For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification.
And:
Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism or Pharisaism.
And:
Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins.
And:
Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.
Sanctification is justification in action? But Justification is by faith alone. Historically and biblically, evangelicals have embraced justification by faith alone but reject sanctification by faith alone. The characters in your movie are hardly faith alone / let go and let God kind of guys. Hence, the WHI criticism. The characters in your movie, like most evangelicals, would reject a gospel contemplationism that seeks a deeper understanding of justification/gospel first and then waits to see if God is going to do anything accordingly. Consider therefore this comment by WHI fellow Michael Horton:
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.
Yes, the characters in your movie wouldn’t be much for the idea of being resaved everyday—would they?
Neither do I think the Christian types portrayed in your movie would agree with the idea that Christians are totally depraved and that all of our works are as filthy rags before the Lord. Zens and Brinsmead on that:
The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration.
Brinsmead had a colleague who helped him with a project that promoted said doctrine named Geoffrey Paxton. He wrote an article in Present Truth denying that the new birth was part of the gospel. It was entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The thesis of the article was that the new birth is purely the work of justification, and not part of the gospel. They believe that “infusion of grace” (ie., the new birth) implies a capability to work with God in sanctification which is supposedly a false gospel. That’s also because their doctrine synthesizes justification and sanctification. Hence, the complaint that your movie didn’t have enough gospel. But of course, the movie isn’t primarily about the gospel, but rather the living out of the Christian faith—which they teach is done by continually returning to salvation. So, compare these two quotes, one from Geoffrey Paxton, and one from WHI’s Michael Horton:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
Your movie is important and I enjoyed it very much. The Bible says that spiritual cowards will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yes, a pity that this kind of teaching has to be in movie form because it’s not being taught in the local church. For that reason, I stopped short of the ovation that took place in the theater where Susan and I watched it. Nevertheless, keep-up the good work. Now reread the WHI critique and see if anything rings a bell.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment