If Space Aliens Visited Westminster Seminary
I don’t know what’s wrong with me this morning. I sang to PJ and Phillip while taking them to school this morning: “Let the sunshine in, face it with a grin, frowner’s never win…….” Too much coffee or something. Then I guess I made the mistake of checking my FB wall before getting to work. One of my friends posted an item concerning an apparent, or possible paranormal event concerning the pale horse of the apocalypse. At first, my comment was serious:
“ Interesting. It could be paranormal – that does happen. But for Christians the question is always, “So what?” Or, Objective verses subjective. Like when lightning struck the giant image of Jesus here in Ohio: objective; God doesn’t like idols so He struck it with lightning. This [note] is more in the realm of subjective. Subjective paranormal events are sometimes a judgment because they are often a form of idol worship. People like idols because they can draw any truth they want from them; like the giant Jesus here in Ohio – it meant many different things to many different people. Likewise, people can draw all kinds of different “conclusions” from subjective paranormal activity. The apostle Paul said that in the end times God will send “delusions” as a judgment and Christ said they will be so deceptive that they could potentially deceive the elect “if that were possible.” I believe that as the time draws near we will see strong delusions, and Katie bar the door, if the likes of John Piper can fool people, one can only imagine the wholesale plunge into deeper error.”
Then something happened. You see, I have been in a cage while writing the second edition of “Another Gospel” because I made Susan the chief editor of the book. Her credentials for such a task are over the top, and it has been brutal: no sarcasm, no unprofessional statements, no unnecessary statements that don’t contribute to the main point, etc., etc., etc., and etc. Do you know what I mean? Do you hear me knocking? “No, this won’t work,” she says, “the blog is informal [my translation: fun!], this is serious business.” So, I made a second comment to the note on FB that was in jest – something about an end-time delusion concerning space aliens visiting Southern Theological Seminary and presenting a false gospel. Then I thought, “Hey, that would make a good post!”
But then I thought (Susan never lets me start a sentence with “but”), “It wouldn’t be fair to use Southern since they are primarily influenced by Westminster these days, so I will use Westminster for the imaginary scenario instead. So, imagine with me, the spaceship lands on the front lawn of Westminster Seminary, the aliens emerge, and say, “Take us to your leader.” Undoubtedly, since this would be a counseling situation, and even a possible alien abduction (I could only wish), they would summon profs from CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster. After listening to the new gospel presented by the aliens, one can only assume they would respond this way:
“No, no, we have a much better gospel than that. We believe in change at the ‘heart level.’ You see, we don’t need to evolve, the church has always had the truth, but then it forgot a bunch of stuff. We realized the church did so when we observed people who hate us developing theories of change based on an ‘inside life.’ Unfortunately, first generation versions of ourselves deny this ‘inside life’ because they are obsessed with what can be known objectively. It is important to overcome that because even though we have recovered truth forgotten by the church, ‘it’s different because it’s always in a different socio-cultural-historical movement, and different forces are at work’ ( see David Powlison interview with 9 Marks Blog). However, this shouldn’t bother our first generation friends because the Bible is not a book of objective truth anyway, it’s a gospel narrative.
Now, on Earth we have flowers called the daisy, and if you just cut down a daisy, it will grow back again because what you need to do is get to the roots and dig them up. Likewise, idols in the heart must be found and destroyed by deep repentance. When we do that, change is just a ‘mere natural flow’ via new obedience. Now, idols in our heart take our desires captive, so we locate the idols by asking ourselves x-ray questions, which will identify desires that have been disoriented / misplaced by the idols. This is very important because like Sigmund Freud, we believe ‘Everything we do is shaped and controlled by what our hearts desire’ (How People Change, p.17). Furthermore, we like to quote a great teacher of the past who said: ‘The heart is an idol factory.’ So, as our nasty hearts continue to create these idols, we must eradicate them by deep repentance.”
At this point, the aliens have a question: “So, your gospel is a gospel that teaches a constant cycle of new idols being created in the heart and the cutting down thereof ?” Answer: “Precisely! Because when we sin, it keeps us humble and prevents self righteousness. But when we obey, it’s not really us obeying; when the idol is eradicated, the void is filled by Christ and he obeys for us. So really, it’s a constant cycle of humbleness and rejoicing in what Jesus is doing, not anything we do. This is much better than the first generation of putting off the old self and putting on the full righteousness of Christ granted to us at salvation.”
Aliens: “But isn’t that what Ephesians 4:20-24 says to do? And isn’t it more objective than idol hunting?” Answer: “That’s first generation thinking. We thought you guys are supposed to be more highly evolved than us. The Bible is a gospel narrative, and ‘Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept we insert into a new formula for life’ (How People Change, p.27). The Bible is a big picture model / story of every believers life, and we are invited to enter into the plot ( How People Change p.94).”
Aliens: “Your concept: the Bible is personal truth embodied in a person [Christ] and expressed in a narrative; therefore, it cannot be applicable truth; isn’t that postmodernism? Another one of your earthly leaders says it is (John MacArthur, Truth War pages 12-14).” Answer: “Guilt by association! Are you guys really blogwatchers posing as aliens?!”
To conclude my narrative, one of the aliens keys his communicator and says the following: “Ground to command, beam us up, there’s no intelligent life down here.”
And once again, CCEF’s research and development team has saved planet Earth!
The end.
(Don’t tell Susan I wrote this).
paul
Is Gospel-Driven Sanctification Really “Sonship” Theology?
Two weeks ago, sitting in my office with my feet propped on a bookcase and chatting with Susan, I happened to be looking up at my Jay Adams shelf. Since it had been too long since I’d read any of his material (at least two weeks), I put my feet down on the floor and began perusing what I haven’t lent to other people; and thinking, “Hmmm, wonder what this is: ‘Biblical Sonship.’”
I always read the preface. So you have the cover, cover page, copyright, contents, and preface. I was reading the first page of the preface, and in the third paragraph, when I read the following: “It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith in the good news.”
Barely a hundred words into the book, and I was stunned. That is the exact same thesis as gospel sanctification, a movement I have been researching for three years. The movement (gospel sanctification, or “gospel-driven sanctification”) is huge and its propagators are the who’s who of the evangelical world that they are supposedly trying to save: DA Carson, Michael Horton, Paul David Tripp, David Powlison, Tim Keller, John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Devers, Francis Chan, Jerry Bridges, and many, many others. The theology is also propagated by several missionary alliances and church planting organizations like the Antioch School in Ames, Iowa.
As Jay Adams notes in his book, the Sonship movement was started by Jack Miller, a former professor of practical theology at Westminster Seminary who is now deceased. According to other sources, Jack Miller’s epiphany concerning Sonship occurred while he was on an extended trip in Spain with his family. An article I read by Geoff Thomas in Banner of Truth was written in 2003, and he mentions the trip to Spain as being about twenty years prior; so figure 1980, or around that time, for the birth of Sonship theology.
In all of my studies concerning gospel sanctification, I had never heard of Jack Miller or Sonship theology, but it became clear from the Jay Adams book that the two theologies are the same thing with the usual peripheral aberrations from the basic form; and the basic form being, but not confined to, progressive justification, sanctification by faith alone, substitutionary monergistic sanctification, and the total depravity of the saints. There is absolutely no doubt – this theology turns orthodoxy completely upside down while the intestinal fortitude of the rest of the evangelical community wanes. Apparently, big names like Jerry Bridges and others are like GM, they’re just too big to fail. As one brother wrote to me: “How dare you criticize DA Carson, one the greatest theological minds of our day!” Furthermore, as Dr. Peter Masters has noted, it is interesting that doctrine doesn’t matter if you are “gospel-driven” in your beliefs. For example, Charismatic and emergent church leaders are readily excepted into the new Calvinism clan if they are “gospel-centered.”
But what came first? Sonship, or gospel sanctification? Did gospel-driven sanctification come from Sonship? Is Jack Miller the father of new Calvinism? It’s looking that way. Historical precedent for gospel sanctification (GS) cannot be found before (approx.)1980. It is the brainchild of Dr. David Powlison, professor at CCEF, the biblical counseling wing of Westminster Seminary. GS came out of his “Dynamics of Biblical Change” curriculum developed and taught by him at Westminster. Two of his former students articulated the doctrine in the book “How People Change.” This is made clear by Powlison in the forward he wrote for the same book. Shortly prior to the book’s release, the doctrine’s theories were tested in local churches via a pilot program. In the reformed church I attended that was part of the pilot program, the curriculum was taught in a Sunday school class with a limited number of participants.
“How People Change” articulates a theology that is virtually identical to Sonship theology. And, it just so happens that David Powlison himself claims that Jack Miller is his “mentor.” He recently stated this as fact while teaching a seminar at John Piper’s church, and in the midst of fustigating Jay Adams for criticizing Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves everyday” *see endnote. I thought this phrase was originally coined by Jerry Bridges, but Jerry Bridges attributes the phrase to Jack Miller in the preface of “The Disciplines of Grace.” Tim Keller, a looming figure in the new Calvinism / gospel-driven / gospel sanctification movement, was teaching GS under the “Sonship” nomenclature as late as 2006. On the Puritan Board, a faint cry for help was uttered by a person saying the following: “ The Sonship theology of Tim Keller has taken a hold of the church I attend. Am I the only one, or does anyone else have a problem with this?”
Furthermore, my research would strongly suggest that the development of other contemporary theologies like New Covenant Theology, (many attribute its conception to Westminster Seminary sometime during the 80’s or 90’s), heart theology (definitely conceived at Westminster during the 90’s), redemptive-historical hermeneutics, and Christian hedonism (latter conceived by John Piper in the 80’s) were primarily driven by the need to validate Sonship / GS doctrine. Sonship needs the NCT perspective on the law, the supposed practical application of finding idols in the heart via heart theology, the perspective of how Sonship is experienced through Christian hedonism, and more than anything else, an interpretive redemptive prism supplied by the redemptive-historical hermeneutic.
But why has gospel sanctification enjoyed freedom from ridicule not afforded to Sonship? They are, for all practical purposes, the same exact thing and encompass many of the same teachers. Probably because gospel sanctification has the word “gospel” in it. In this age of hyper-grace, people will shy away from any appearance of being against “the gospel.” I have to believe that the movement has traded the Sonship label, with its share of bullet holes, for the “gospel-driven” label. Sonship has been besieged by two works, the book by Jay Adams and a lengthy article by Van Dixhoorn, a former student at Westminster. Sonship has also been pelted with its share of the “antinomian” accusation, and rightfully so. In my second addition of “Another Gospel,” I write the following on page 78:
“….if the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and Christ said that we are sanctified by the word; and certainly He did say that as recorded in John 17:17, then every word in the Bible must be about justification, or what God has done and not anything we could possibly do, being a gospel affair. Furthermore, if we are sanctified by the gospel which is God’s work alone, we may have no more role in spiritual growth than we did in the gospel that saved us. The Scriptures are clear; no person is justified by works of the law. Is that not the gospel? Therefore, when the antinomians speak of obedience, it should be apparent that they are not speaking of our obedience, even though they allow us to assume otherwise.”
At least one book, a lengthy pamphlet, and several articles defend Sonship against Adams and Van Dixhoorn, but the theological arguments are woefully lame. Nevertheless, my point is that gospel sanctification, though the same thing, is enjoying widespread acceptance throughout the church without controversy while unifying camps that are theologically suspect to say the least.
It is what it is; while mad theological scientist concoct all sorts of new potions in the lab and send their minions out to commit first-degree doctrinal felonies in broad daylight, while many who profess to love the real gospel say nothing. I pray that will change, while thanking God for those who love the truth more than the acceptance and praises of men.
Endnote:
Powlison failed to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book that is an apology against Sonship theology. Failure to mention that put Adams in an anti-gospel light as well as depriving him of the ability to contextualize the criticism. As an aside, Powlison, in the same seminar, criticized “idol hunting”; but yet, he is the inventor of “X-ray questions”(which he also mentioned in positive terms without the “X-ray” terminology, but rather something like “reorienting questions”) which are designed to identify heart idols (see page 163 of “How People Change”). His mentor, Jack Miller, developed a complex system of idol hunting that included twenty different categories of heart idols (Jack Miller, “Repentance and the 20th Century Man”CLC 1998). This kind of disingenuous double-speak is commonplace within the movement.
“The Power is in the Doing”: Statement by Former Counselor Could Ruin His Career
I heard it again yesterday at the end of a pretty-decent sermon; the first of a series on the life of Abraham. Of course, in our neo- everything about salvation church culture, the title of the series is “Abraham:Justified by Faith.” Thank goodness. Between every song on the radio being about justification, every praise song being about the cross, and the words “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” faintly burned into the background of my monitor from too much web surfing, I had almost forgotten.
That was yesterday, and I had almost forgotten again on the way to take Phillip to school this morning when I heard these words from a song on the radio: “Mercy doesn’t care what you have done.” Though 2Cor 5:10 came to mind the second I heard it, I then saw a calm, smiling, assuring face in my mind’s eye; with a big bushy mustache and glasses on it saying, “Paul, Paul, my precious namesake, such verses must be seen in their “gospel context.” Again, thank goodness, I almost traded in “a treasure chest of joy” for working out my own salvation with trembling and fear.
So, before I forget, what was the “it” I heard at the end of the pretty-decent (because I learned some pretty-cool stuff) sermon yesterday? Well, the end of the sermon was prefaced with a warning that we don’t want to do anything (that I assume we had learned in the sermon), “in our own strength,” or “in our own efforts.” That statement, or qualifier, doesn’t usually incite a lost practice in today’s church: interpretive questions. Like, “How do we, or how would we, know when we are doing it in our “own efforts” or otherwise? However, such questions may not be asked very often, if at all, because it has become taboo in today’s church culture to even ask “how” which could imply verbs that may have to follow in the answer, and thereby plunging many into sin, and worse yet, a denial of the gospel.
Besides, such questions could also incite other troublesome questions in the what category: Is it possible to go to the bathroom in my own efforts? And if I do, is it sin? Or, is there a dichotomy between things we can do wrongfully in “our own efforts”(a spiritual category), and other things where we can’t? (non-spiritual category). And how many categories are there accordingly? And what are they?And once we separate the categories, how do we do the spiritual ones without interjecting our sinful, own efforts? And how does this jive with what the apostle Paul said about doing “all things” to the glory of God?
Oh for the days when sermons answered more questions than they raised. Oh for the days when Christians thought enough to ask questions. Why does it matter? Because we counsel like we preach. Because we tell people to live the way we preach. Because all music we hear on the radio is inspired by what those musicians hear at their own local churches. If you need counsel regarding a deep problem in your life, I can tell you how a pastor and his parishioners will counsel you – listen to his sermons. If all you hear from the pulpit is the gospel, that’s all your going to get in the counseling chambers as well. If the sermon raises more questions than it answers, so will the counseling. And if you don’t ask interpretive questions about life – your well on you way to being a goner for all practical purposes.
And why does all of that matter? Many years ago, I was on my way to see a pastor / counselor, and I was in big, big, trouble. And like all Christians who are in big trouble, or in deep waters, we are looking for a silver bullet; or, at least the secret Bible verse that will end all of our problems in fifteen minutes. Nobody likes pain, and there are no problem pills, just pain pills, which make the pain go away, but not the problem. And at that time, I would have loved to hear the silver bullet solution offered today : the gospel. I can imagine how it would have gone as I eagerly anticipated his entry into the room. Upon his entry, a birth of hope, and the hope escalating with each new event: the greeting; taking his seat at the table; opening his notebook, pen in hand; asking questions like a skillful, knowing doctor; listening to my description of the problem; and then, alas! it’s time! God’s solution! It may have gone like this:
Counselor: “Paul, I have listened to you describe your problems and I have also read the testimony about your life that I asked you to write and deliver to my office prior to this appointment. Paul, there is a topic conspicuously lacking from all that you have said today, and in your testimony as well. Do you know what that is?
Me: “Uh, no.”
Counselor: “Christ”
Me: “But I wrote about how I was saved in 1983!”
Counselor: “So, you only needed grace in 1983?”
Me: “Well, no, of course not, we need Christ every day”
Counselor: “But you have been living like you only needed Him in 1983.”
Me: “What do you mean?”
Counselor: “Paul, we don’t just accept the gospel once and then move on to other things, we need the gospel every day”
Me: “Every day?”
Counselor: “Yes. The key to a life of joy is going deeper and deeper into the gospel that saved us, not going deeper into other things. Paul, you know a lot of theology, but unfortunately, your theology is about what you do, NOT what Jesus does for us. Paul, take your Bible and go to Romans 7:24 and read it aloud.”
Me: “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”
Counselor: “You didn’t just need to be rescued in 1983, you need to be rescued every day. All of your efforts right now, many of which you mention in your written testimony, are nothing more than Christless activism being done in your own efforts. Also, your criticism of others that I see in your written testimony is spawned by the very success that you obtain in applying your theological concepts to life; this creates a self-righteous attitude rather than cultivating a spirit that totally depends on Christ, and what He has already done for us, not anything we try to do.”
Me: “I knew it! I knew it! I knew something has always been missing! [the silver bullet! The secret Bible verse! (Rom 7:24)]. What now?! Where do we go from here?”
Counselor: “Paul, look at you- you are full of joy- joy is indicative of true saving faith. How long has it been since you have been happy Paul?”
Me: “Oh my! It has been forever!”
Counselor: “In the book of Galatians, the apostle Paul addressed a trap that the Galatians had fallen into. He explained it this way in Gal 3:3; ‘Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?’ By trying to learn imperatives in the Bible and applying them to your life, you are not living by the same Spirit that you supposedly trusted in when you professed your belief in Christ. This is using the Bible for law-keeping instead of looking in the Scriptures for more gospel, and more Christ. That is what the apostle is talking about, in this verse, when he speaks of a ‘receiving by faith’ verses a ‘receiving by works of the law (or Scripture).’”
Me: “Wow! I’ve been fed a bill of goods all of my Christian life! I may not even be saved!”
Counselor: “Well Paul, you come from Reformed theology, which is good, and many great Reformed leaders of our time like Micheal Horton say that if you accept the gospel and ‘move on to something else, you loose both’ both meaning sanctification AND justification. Another awesome Reformed leader of our time, the great, and magnificent John Piper, said that as Christians, a ‘battle to perform’ makes that battle the grounds of our justification. Instead, he says we must make ‘a battle to believe’ our primary focus in the Christian life, or we are making anything more than that (belief only) our grounds for justification. In other words, works salvation.”
Me: [Remember, we’re pretending] “WOW! This is the light bulb moment of my life!
Counselor: “Turn to Galatians 2:20, and read it aloud.”
Me: “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”
Counselor: “Who no longer lives?”
Me: “Us.”
Counselor: “And we live by what only?”
Me: “Faith.”
Counselor: “So Paul, are you now ready to really die to yourself and the law?”
Me: “Absolutely!”
Now, here is what really happened based on true events. It is a paraphrased synopsis that encompasses the major, and most important points:
Counselor: “I have a new goal for you Paul, your new goal is to please Christ.”
Me: “How is that going to get me out of this problem?”
Counselor: “That’s not Biblical thinking. Your primary goal isn’t to merely get out of the problem, but to please God in the midst of the problem and let the problem work to transform you into the image of Christ.”
Me: “That’s hard.”
Counselor: “Who told you that the Christian life is always easy?”
Me: “But how could this happen to a Christian?”
Counselor: “Where would I even start? ‘He causes it to rain and shine on the just as well as the unjust.’ ‘He disciplines those whom He loves.’ We can start there.”
Me: “So he allows this stuff into our life to bring good out of it?”
Counselor: “No, that’s not biblical thinking. He not only allows it, He promises to never allow anything into our life that we cannot endure. This tells us two things: first, he is in total control of everything that comes into our lives. He not only allows it, God is up to something in your life! He is right in the middle of this situation. Secondly, He has promised to see you through till the end of the trial. The trial is for your good, and not your destruction. This is His promise to you, and I am challenging you to persevere accordingly. The trial will end in God’s time, but it will have an end, and you will be more like Christ.”
Me: “So, this is the very hand of God working in my life. Not the way I would have ordered it, but I guess it’s not God’s will that everything goes the way we think it should.”
Counselor: “Exactly.”
Me: “But I don’t understand. I am praying hard and reading my Bible every day. Where am I going wrong?”
Counselor: “You are doing the right thing the wrong way [Stop here for a moment. There is no such thing as “doing it in our own efforts.” The real problem is: “doing it the wrong way” ie., other than God’s way]. I would never tell you not to read your Bible, or pray, but the power is in the doing.”
Me: “I’m not comfortable with that! It sounds legalistic! Could that approach really be curative?”
Counselor: “Read Matthew 7:24-27 aloud.”
Me: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”
Counselor: “Sure, you read the Bible, but what I can tell from the data I have collected, you do not properly apply what you have read. When that happens, which of the houses in Matthew seven is yours?”
Me: “At this point, and under the circumstances, I think that’s obvious.”
Counselor: “Read James 1:22-25 aloud.”
Me: “Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.”
Counselor: “Again, our primary goal is to please Christ, but to answer your question, pleasing Christ by practicing His word, the right way, IS curative, especially in regard to the lack of peace you have in your life right now. Regarding peace that comes from right praying, right thinking, and right doing, I have given you homework on Philippians four. Your appointment is for this time next week. Don’t come unless your homework is done.”
Me: “So, do you think I’m saved?”
Counselor: “Well, your profession is sound, and salvation is by faith alone, but if your for real, you will do what God wants you to do.”
I might add that the real counselor would have been quick to qualify his statement with the following: “Our doing — God’s power.” In fact, though I look back at how difficult it was to persevere through that trial, I recognize the fact that even though it took much effort on my part, I couldn’t have persevered without God’s help, empowerment, illumination, and granting of willpower. But it is also very important to remember that He has promised to supply these three in the midst of trials. Notwithstanding, it will still take everything we have in us to persevere; this is how we experience trials, and really, it’s how we should experience our walk with God as well, loving God with “all of our heart, soul, and mind.” If we will do this, God will gladly supply all the will that we need accordingly. The apostle Paul said to never grow weary in well-doing. The Hebrew writer said to lift up the limbs that are sagging because of exhaustion. Do that, because God will supply, as a manner of speaking, the second wind.
First, the Scriptures are clear; we are called on to exert much of our own effort in the sanctification process, and it is our own effort. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be the ones with the sagging limbs and weariness (Heb 12:12). We are strengthened by grace as we obey and “make every effort to add to [our] your faith” (2Pet 1:5). Without our effort, we will be “ineffective” and “unproductive” in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2Pet 1:8). And unless we “make every effort,” we will lack assurance as fruits are not prevalent in our lives; because obviously, we aren’t making an effort to do so.
Secondly, it is impossible to obey God, or do God’s will wrongfully “in our own efforts,” Why? Because the Holy Spirit works through God’s word, and according to truth (John 17:17). As my counselor aptly noted, the real problem is attempting to do God’s will the wrong way, or no way (spiritual laziness), NOT correct practice thereof. The fear that believers can be like unbelievers by correctly obeying God’s word “in there own efforts” is untrue because unbelievers cannot have a proper understanding of God’s word,and the proper practice thereof, in the first place. The whole notion is patently absurd.
The Scriptures do more than tell us how to be saved. They also tell us how to make disciples, “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded.” To say that the Scriptures are solely for the purpose of showing Christians how to be more deeply justified / saved every day is an antinomian lie from the pit of hell. And frankly, I don’t care who propagates the lie, or how well they dress, or how many degrees they have after their name; their counsel is instructing Christians to build their houses upon sand, and not rock. We don’t tell those who “dig deep” (Lk 6:48) to worry about working “by their own efforts,” Their own efforts are certainly involved. Anyone who even makes such a statement from the pulpit is antinomian because the very statement, “obeying God in our own efforts,” begs the next question: how would we know? And….(see all of the aforementioned mess you get into to, like practical dichotomies, etc.).
My former counselor had it right, the power (or at least the blessings [Js 1:25]) is in the doing, and specifically, right doing; but far be it from me to mention his name here, it would ruin his career and he might have to go work at a car wash, or worse yet, an Arminian seminary. The bunch he works with right now would be aghast that he would say such a thing to a counselee, and often malign others publicly for the same offense. However, maybe he’s safe; he could have “repented.” He may now be doing his part in showing hurting people “more Jesus,” or “more gospel,” or how to find what Jesus did in the text, rather than anything Jesus might tell us to do.
If that’s true, let’s close with another counseling scenario:
My former counselor: “So, what have you learned?
Counselee: “I have to do it by doing it through God. But that seems like I’m doing it by making God do it. But I guess not, because I have to do that by not doing it, but by letting God do it. This is hard because I keep trying to do that in my own strength. I have to work harder at that. I mean, not work, but let God work, that’s what I have to work at. I mean…does that sound right?
paul
Commendation, and Hyper-Grace Pharisees
Offended, he was, when I told a pastor that his sermon was a “home run.” “I don’t hit ‘home runs,’” he said, obviously offended because I didn’t “give all of the glory to the Lord.” Besides, depending on his flavor of hyper-grace theology prevalent in our day, he might also believe that Christ actually delivered the sermon “through him.” Hence, we are merely lifeless vessels that Christ uses to do His work. It is more than fair to say that this kind of theology is being propagated by some of the most respected leaders of our day. Then there was the time I was talking to the recipient of an astounding gift from another Christian family who was a family of little financial means. The gift (to meet an important need) was a proverbial giving of the right arm. I commented to the recipient regarding how amazed I was at such a sacrificial gift. The response: “they didn’t give me anything, it was the Lord.” It was obvious that the recipient was not only offended by my remark, but was defending the other family from the sin of not “giving all of the glory to the Lord.”
Yes, grace is in the air like never before. Jesus does it all. As Steve Green sings, we are “empty vessels waiting to be filled.” We are empty, and all we can do is *wait* and hope that Jesus will do something in our lives, so when he does, everyone will know it was the Lord because we are “empty,” dead vessels. And as Steve Green also notes in the same song, “That’s Were The Joy Comes From,” when we see Jesus obeying for us. Therefore, to commend others is to deny that Jesus did it all; a sin worthy of receiving the dreaded label spelled P-h-a-r-i-s-e-e.
There is only one problem. We have let theologians of our day define *legalism* which the Pharisees were supposedly guilty of. Their definition of legalism is any effort on our part to do what God wants us to do. I like what Jay Adams has to say about this notion:
“Strangely, there are, today, those who believe that if we do anything to please God, we are acting by ‘the arm of flesh.’ By that they mean we are doing something solely in our own strength. But, by making it an either/or matter, we upset the biblical balance of loving obedience and strengthening grace” (“What is Sanctification” INS blog, September 16, 2010).
In a book that I would not recommend (“Introduction to Biblical Counseling” by the Master’s College faculty) because it gives unwarranted credibility to some who are not doctrinally sound (ie., David Powlison and others), Dennis Swanson rightly notes that “legalism is a term that is frequently tossed around without much thought to its meaning” (p. 381). He proceeds to define legalism in these biblical terms: “In legalism someone establishes an external standard of spirituality and then judges everyone by that standard.” And that’s what the Pharisees were guilty of. They mingled the Law of God with their own tradition making it “void” (Matthew 15:1-9). All of today’s much-ado-about-nothing regarding the fear that we will unwittingly offend God by doing what he wants us to do scripturally, because it is us doing it and not Him, is not legalism.
Though many other examples could be used, let me now continue to use “commendation” as an example of how this passive view of Scripture is actually legalism, and not our “own”(as if the exercise of our efforts automatically denies God’s efficacious involvement) efforts to please God. Simply put, to not recognize the good works of others (Christians, of course) because it supposedly takes glory from God and implies that we have a role in good works, is an external standard that is not biblical, and therefore is really legalism. The apostle Paul explicitly commands us to commend others and recognize them publicly, and did so himself on many occasions:
“So then, welcome him in the Lord with great joy, and honor people like him, because he almost died for the work of Christ. He risked his life to make up for the help you yourselves could not give me”(Philippians 2:29,30).
Paul also called Timothy God’s “co-worker” (1Thessalonians 3:2 ESV). I mean really, do we need to look up “co-worker” in Webster’s Dictionary? We are to commend those who do their part in God’s work. And frankly, I find the disclaimer “we know the Lord did it all” whenever we do commend saints, annoying. Let me use one more example other than “commendation” before I close. Since I mentioned him above, David Powlison has said to never tell a counselee to “just stop it,” and that the Lord would never say that to one of his children (see full article here: https://paulspassingthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/will-the-poo-pooing-of-scriptures-plain-sense-ever-cease/ ) This is a standard set by Powlison, not Scripture (see John 5:14, Acts 15:29, 21:25, 1Peter 2:11). Abstinence is clearly one of many weapons in our sanctification repertoire. Again, many other examples could be cited, but legalism is the following of a false standard, not biblical standards, we call that “obedience.”
While claiming to be on a crusade to save the church from Pharisee-ism and legalism, they are really the ones that are the Pharisees of our day. Specifically, they are hyper-grace Pharisees.
paul
So, When Did New Calvinism Hijack Westminster? And…
I own a couple of online bookstores and enjoy reading some of the older Christian books. As I was entering books the other day, I picked one up from the stack entitled “The Infallible Word” written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, the one in Philadelphia. The book is a real keeper; It is in very good condition, and is the third revision of a symposium on the doctrine of Scripture. It was written in 1946, and the third revision (the copy I have) was printed in 1967. The forward is written by Dr. M. Lloyd Jones. Apparently, the contributors are from the Westminster faculty of that time (1946) as follows: John Murray; Edward Young; N.B. Stonehouse; John Skelton; Paul Wooley; R.B. Kuiper; Cornelius Van Til.
As Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan has noted, New Calvinism’s claim of historical precedent is far from impressive. And as others have noted, New Covenant Theology (which is joined at the hip with New Calvinism) was probably conceived at Westminster around 1980. So, when I picked up the next data entry and realized what it was, my first thought was, “this should be interesting.” Yes, especially with Paul Wooley stating in the Preface: “It continues to be our conviction that this is the basic position of the divines who made up the Westminster Assembly which convened in 1643…”
There is no room here to state all of the glaring contradictions between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism provoked by the reading of this book, but I will rather focus on what New Calvinism and its tenets (NCT, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics) should stand on, or fall: its view of Scripture.
First, the faculty didn’t share New Calvinism’s Christocentric view of Scripture. Their view of Scripture was very similar to traditional Evangelicalism, which is disdained by proponents of New Calvinism. Before I continue, I might also add that Geerhardus Vos and his Biblical Theology is not once mentioned in the book, or if it is, I certainly missed it, and he (Vos) definitely appears nowhere in the index of names. Instead of “gospel” being used to refer to Scripture (actually, I remember “gospel” being used once, maybe twice, in the whole book), the term that all faculty members used throughout the book to describe Scripture, seemingly on every page, was “the objective divine authority.” Throughout the book, the emphasis was *objective authority* NOT *gospel narrative.* John Murray states the following on page 29:
“It is precisely in this estimation of the Scriptures and in such illusion to them, as not only prophetic of what took place in the fullness of time but also as having direct bearing upon the most practical and abiding of Christian duties, that the New Testament abounds.”
Got that? The Scriptures are not only about what took place in “the fullness of time” (ie., the gospel), but “also” have a “direct bearing” on practical Christian “duties.” To the New Calvinist, this statement is barley less than heresy. Furthermore, *obedience* to the *authority* of Scripture is a constant theme throughout the book. N.B. Stonehouse further elaborates on page 99:
“It is our conviction that the idea of canonicity has meaning and validity only if Christian theism, the theism of the Bible, is true. Implicit in the idea of a divinely authoritative Scripture is the thought of God as self-existent and self sufficient, the creator and ruler of the universe. His works necessarily constitute a disclosure of his mind and purpose.”
Not only does this make my prior point, but introduces another: this is a far cry from John Piper’s Christocentric assertion that God “entered history through the works of Christ.” No, redemption entered history as a disclosure of God’s mind and purpose. This leaves room for other things God may want to disclose about Himself, obviously. And this was also the position of the Westminster faculty. In fact, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not New Calvinism’s idea that all Scripture is Christicentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word “psalms”? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
Hence, in the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence,” as it is more than fair to say of the New Calvinist mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
Secondly, along the lines of Scripture, the faculty did not share the New Calvinist / NCT view that Christ came to abolish the Old Testament Law by fulfilling it, but rather fulfilled it to FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY. John Murray makes this clear on pages 20 and 21 while commenting on Matthew 5:17-19;
“ The word ‘destroy’ (kataluo) is particularly significant. It means to abrogate, to demolish, to disintegrate, to annul or, as J.A. Alexander points out, ‘the destruction of the whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.’ His emphatic denial of any such purpose in reference to either the law or the prophets means that the discharge of his messianic mission leaves the law and the prophets intact. He utters, however, not only this emphatic denial but also adds the positive purpose of his coming – he came to fulfill, to complete. And so his work with reference to both law and prophets is completory, not destructive. He who can speak in the immediately succeeding context with such solemn asseveration and imperious authority brings all that is involved in such asseveration and authority to bear upon the confirmation of the abiding validity, stability, and authority of both law and prophets. And not only so, but he also grounds his own mission and task upon such permanent validity, and defines his work in terms of fulfillment of all that the law and the prophets provided.”
Murray states here that Christ’s mission was grounded in the permanent authority of the law and the prophets. Could there be a more antithetical statement in regard to New Covenant Theology?
Lastly, Stonehouse makes it clear what the Westminster faculty believed in regard to a centrality of Scripture on page 107:
“ To put the matter in concrete and specific terms, Christianity began as a religion of a divine book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged a book as an objective expression of the divine mind and will. Were it not that so many modern writers have approached the study of the New Testament cannon with the assumption that Christianity is basically not a religion of authority but a religion of “the spirit,” it would hardly seem necessary to emphasize the point that the idea of an inscripturated canon, far from being uncongenial to Christianity, forms an integral element of the Christian faith from the beginning of its life.”
While this statement makes my aforementioned point, let me also ask: what is more indicative of New Calvinism than the claim that it promotes “the spirit” over the authority of Scripture? The Westminster faculty of that time even cautioned against the truth / tension of the illuminating Spirit being set against objective authority: “This doctrine of the inward witness of the Spirit does not sacrifice the objective authority of the Scriptures, as often maintained” (p.101).
Do I have to try to carry all of the water here? Somebody help me out. It seems that these guys (as I gather from my reading) were definitely Covenant theologians. But there is no way that the movers and shakers at the present-day Westminster Seminary are of Covenant Theology. If you believe that, I would like to tell that this book is personally autographed by Van Til with a gel pen, and it can be yours for a modest price of say, 200 bucs. You can’t separate New Calvinism from NCT / Gospel Sanctification, they are joined at the hip. What’s going on over there? It looks like a hijacking to me, and when did it happen? And how do these guys get away with pretending to be on the same par with Westminster tradition? I’m just asking.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment