Paul's Passing Thoughts

Sometimes the answer to a question makes a post:

Submitted on 2011/11/25 at 11:55 am | In reply to Greg.

Greg, Continued:

1A) Statement: “In several places you make a distinction between what you call ‘New Calvinism” and “Old Calvinism’. I put it in quotes only because these terms are not familiar to me.”

This is also paramount to our day, what is the difference between the two? I have learned that distinguishing between the two in reference to Romans 8:30 is core. Don’t miss this: New Calvinism started with the basis of the “Awakening” movement started by Robert Brinsmead. It was VERY good news for Seventh-day Adventists who were raised on the investigative judgment doctrine. Ellen White had lengthy treatises that attempted to explain how we were saved by grace alone, but needed to keep ourselves fit for the investigative judgment. Simply put, salvation acquits us of past failures against the law of God, but with the help of the Holy Spirit in sanctification, we could maintain the perfection necessary to be fit for the judgment. Brinsmead’s first theological frame launched the Awakening movement, and it was based on his interpretation of Romans 8:30 (which he drew from in-depth study on the Reformers and the Reformation). The absence of sanctification in that verse indicated to Brinsmead that justification and sanctification were the same thing. Supposedly, the traditional view of sanctification ADDED an additional STEP to justification that was not Scriptural. Conclusion? Awesome news for SDA: Jesus stands in the judgment for us!!

But the fundamental flaw in this doctrine is the SDA belief that justification must be maintained. The premise is flawed. Because justification must be maintained, everything after justification must serve to maintain it, so justification and sanctification, for all practical purposes, must be the same thing. About the time Brinsmead came up with this conclusion, and because it caused a mass revival in the SDA, the Australian Forum project was started to make it all work together in a consistent system lest this rediscovery of lost Reformed doctrine would be lost again. In fact, they sought to establish the “fact” that the Reformation was founded on this very doctrine known as the centrality of the objective gospel. look around, they did their job well.

Hence, this is the fundamental difference between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism: Old Calvinism teaches that justification and sanctification are separate because justification does not need to be maintained, it is finished and complete. That’s why sanctification is not mentioned in Romans 8:30, because sanctification does NOTHING to complete or maintain justification. It is such a done deal that Romans 8:30 states that we are already glorified–before the world was ever created!!

In contrast, New Calvinists believe that justification and sanctification cannot be separated because to do so would be to add an additional step to justification that would include our efforts, because everything points back to justification being maintained. This can be clearly seen in their ongoing statements, including the constant “the ground of our justification” verbiage. The distinction here couldn’t be more vital! Old Calvinists believe that nothing we do in sanctification can earn justification because justification is complete, and the full righteousness of God has been credited to our account. The Old Calvinist now beckons all believers to experience that reality by being obedient to our role in sanctification. Can we try to earn God’s favor in sanctification and thereby unwittingly make that the same as attempting to keep ourselves justified? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!!!!!!!!!!!! That’s impossible! IT IS FINISHED!!!!!!!!!!

Not so with New Calvinism. Because the two are not separate, doing things that make those things the “grounds for our justification” becomes very tricky business and eternity depends on it, so you better rely on the New Calvinists to sort it all out. Buyer beware! The formula plays it safe (like the servant who hid his talents in the ground), our sanctification is “grounded” in justification via being sanctified the same way we were justified, ie., the gospel, preaching it to ourselves every day, and “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” As I document in The Truth About New Calvinism, THIS ALL CAME FROM THE AUSTRALIAN FORUM. All of these guys who seem so spiritual and wise bought into a Seventh-day Adventist doctrine unawares. It would be comical if not for the carnage they are leaving on the landscape of Christianity.

paul

In Bill Nash’s email regarding my postings, he said that I have nothing good to say about, among others, Tim Keller. Therefore, it can be assumed that the Southwood elders endorse Tim Keller, especially since Keller was named in the same list as the apostle Paul, who I supposedly have nothing good to say about as well.

He would be correct about my view of Keller. In “The Truth about New Calvinism,” I say the following on page 70:

“Regardless of the fact that Keller’s popularity as a New Calvinist is second to none, it is well known that he is a Christian mystic:

….Endorsed Eastern Mystic feminist Adele Calhoun’s Spiritual Disciplines Handbook, also endorsed by mystic Ruth Halye Barton. ….Recommends Roman Catholic mysticism.

….At Tim Keller’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church, teaches contemplative spirituality, eastern mysticism and held classes on The Way of the Monk where students were helped to get in touch with their ‘inner monk’ – another term for the ‘inner self.’”

I took these quotes from the blog “5 Pt. Salt,” and the same blog posted the following article concerning Keller’s views on homosexuality:

http://5ptsalt.com/2011/05/14/tim-keller-it-is-very-misleading-to-say-homosexuality-is-a-sin/

I will continue to drive home the point that this is an antinomian doctrine, and they perceive Scripture as nothing more than a tool for Gospel Contemplationism. Furthermore, their continual counsel to people with serious life problems will be “more gospel.” This movement must be stopped!

paul

As I sat in church, in corporate prayer to our Sovereign Lord, the words from the preacher’s lips bespoke the idea of the total depravity of believers.  “We don’t love you, Lord.”  “What?! – we don’t?!  I do, I do, I do!” I screamed in my head.  There was more along those lines, like ‘we don’t do as you command.’  Is this His church?  Is this how we praise and worship Him?  Since when are we to be of the mindset that “[g]race will NEVER be amazing, until [our] sin is amazing first.”[1]

When preachers teach believers “…that the very BEST things we’ve ever done—the most pious, most religious, most holy, most selfless acts of obedience, with the purest motives we could possibly muster on our best days, if rightly accounted for, would be in the debit column of our lives, NOT the credit column,”[2] how are we to “…go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28: 19-20).

The idea of the “total depravity of the saints” is creeping into our churches and denying the intrinsic value of the Holy Spirit in our individual lives and the life of His church.  “New Calvinist Paul David Tripp describes Christians as “dead” on page 64 of How People Change (2006) and states: ‘When you are dead, you can’t do anything.’ On the same page and the one following, he describes Christians as God’s enemies, fools, not only unable to please God, but lacking the knowhow even if we wanted to (which is a blatant contradiction to what Scripture states), alienated, guilty, and rebellious sinners.”[3]

Is total depravity of the saints simply a pessimistic view of Christian life since “the flesh is weak” as opposed to an optimistic focus on “the Spirit is willing”?  (Matthew 26:41).   Both are true, yet where is the balance?  What should the Christian mindset be?  Dead in sin?  No.  “So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11).  “And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24).   “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own….”  (1 Corinthians 6:19).

Good news, believers — we’re alive!  And since we are partakers of His divine nature, can we make an effort to keep from falling?  Yes.  In 2 Peter 1:5-11, we’re commanded to.  And, “whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (John 14:21).

The first sentence of Jean Larroux’s testimony on southwood.org states the following:

““I have worked very hard at being a Pharisee (and was quite successful) and now work very hard at trying to rest in Grace.”

The New Calvinist Bible of Choice, the ESV, quotes  Jesus as saying that his contention was with people who relax the law (Matthew 5:19). Sounds like Larroux strives for plenty of “rest” and relaxation. In context, Jesus was speaking of the Pharisees. Jean has it backwards, he has never been a Pharisee, but he is now.   Read more here:   Jean Larroux III and the Pharisees