The Significance of Kevin DeYoung’s Top Ten
“However, it is my hope that [DeYoung] will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our ‘sanctification tool belt,’ that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.”
“One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.”
“Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt; they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them.”
Kevin DeYoung, hereafter, “Special K” (SK), recently wrote a third post
( http://shar.es/HeU1Q ) clarifying his position on sanctification. SK wrote a prior post
( http://shar.es/HeU3w ) which was a capitulation to Tullian Tchividjian who responded to his first post on the same subject. In the second post, SK listed ten interpretive questions that he is considering while on a sabbatical for the purpose of writing a book on sanctification. The significance of these ten questions should not be missed. Those ten questions strike at the heart of New Calvinism, and it would seem that in light of his latest post, he has answered those questions in a way that is not favorable to New Calvinism. In fact, it almost seems like the latest post is in your face when compared to his response to Tchividjian’s “pushback” regarding his first post which only hinted of orthodoxy to begin with. The significance of these ten questions is the following:
1. Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
SK didn’t pull these questions out of the clouds. This question has to be asked because New Calvinist (NC) teach that God cannot be anymore pleased with us than He already is in Jesus Christ (that’s true in regard to justification). The “justified” believer, as opposed to simply, “believer” is not worded that way for no reason. Supposedly, to admit that there is something we can do to please God as believers is to take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Also, remember that the core beliefs of New Calvinism came from the Australian Forum, and their doctrine is primarily driven by the centrality of the objective gospel. In other words, the gospel is something outside of us, not inside (subjective). Inside considerations (like anything we would do [subjective]) cannot “eclipse” anything Christ has done (note: Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” will soon be available for purchase).
2. Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
This question is simply the other side of number one. New Calvinist teach that God cannot be displeased with us anymore than he can be displeased with Christ, and for the same reasons that we cannot do anything to gain more favor with God than we already have in Christ. Again, it’s not about us (subjective) and how the supposed displeasure of God would make us feel (subjective). SK seems to have answered this question for himself in the third post: “But God also motivates us by a sense of duty, by gratitude, by threats, by promises, and by the fear of the Lord.” And by the way, to NC, this statement is barely less than blaspheme.
3. Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both
trying to find a root sin?
Obviously, SK is questioning one of the four major tenets of NC: Theology of the Heart. This theology was added to NC via Sonship Theology and David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which was articulated in Paul Tripp’s “How People Change”
What Jonah knew and believed about God is what caused him to rebel. He knew God was a merciful God and would probably save the Ninevites, whom Jonah hated. That’s why he didn’t want to go there. In Jonah’s case, it was attitude, bad thinking, and a refusal to obey, not unbelief. It is evident in the book that Jonah had tremendous faith in God. But NC must make all issues in sanctification the same as justification which is primarily by faith only; so, it stands to reason that they have to make all sin issues in sanctification a belief issue. The NC position on this question is no better defended than in Tripp’s book. SK needs to read “How People Change” followed by the Donn Arms book review of HPC ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC ).
4. How are justification and sanctification related?
I think this question is now rightly, for the most part, answered by SK’s third post. I only take exception to a few statements thereof, but here is one: “Are we sanctified by remembering our justification? Yes.” SK is saying that contemplating our justification is still a viable way to grow spiritually, but he is presenting it as another tool “in our tool belt” rather than the only discipline from which all other duties flow (Dr. Peter Masters’ contention regarding Piper). However, it is my hope that SK will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our sanctification tool belt, that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.
5. Can we obey God?
This speaks to the NC doctrine of the total depravity of the saints. Again, most definitely, this originated with the Australian Forum who denied the new birth, or being born again. Michael Horton also denies the significance of the new birth and takes his cue from the Forum on that issue.
6. Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we
have done as we were commanded?
This clearly speaks to the NC belief that obedience in sanctification is synonymous with an attempt to be justified. Hence, asked another way: “Is the totally depraved believer really able to obey and know that it is legitimate obedience that pleases God?” One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.
7. How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
By describing the tools in our tool belt, not the NC belief that the Bible is only a tool for contemplating the gospel.
8. Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when
they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
No Kevin. Many Christians are walking in violation of their conscience because of what New Calvinism teaches. Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt, they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them. My brother—please flee—perhaps there is not too much blood on your hands.
9. Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness
and content with little progress in godliness)?
Of course they are! They are taught that they cannot be a part of the progress!
10. What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with
Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
It’s the antithesis of the Forum’s view that formed New Calvinism: “The centrality of the objective gospel.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 10: A Strong Finish For “Dr.” John MacArthur Not Looking Good
“Where did this ‘eclipsing Christ’ standard of truth come from? And does it add anything to the genealogy hypothesis?”
When I saw the advertisement, my heart sank. In my wrestling with proponents of Gospel Sanctification over the years, one of their mantranized mottos has been whether or not something “eclipses Christ” as a primary standard for determining truth. As others will attest who witnessed the hostile takeover of Clearcreek Chapel by the Chad Bresson cartel, “I have a problem with that view because it eclipses Christ” was a phrase that was constantly heard.
Back to the advertisement: MacArthur has written the forward to a new book written by one of his close ministry associates, Rick Holland. The title of the book is, “Uneclipsing The Son” by “Dr.” (a title that more and more is becoming a sign of danger more than respect) Rick Holland. Even from the standpoint of this (me) Evangelical peasant, “Dr.” MacArthur’s forward to the book raises troubling questions:
“This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our heart.”
I asked the Sultana of Optimism, my wife Susan, to evaluate the statement. She immediately pointed out that the second part of the statement concerning private meditation was biblically untrue for many reasons. As far as Christ ALWAYS being the CENTRAL theme of the gospel, I will address that in future parts. Granted, Christ must always be part of a gospel presentation, it’s not the gospel without Him, but is He always the one and only central theme of the presentation as MacArthur suggests? Is Christ the only one who “deserves” to be a central figure of the gospel? Phil Johnson’s (the Executive Director of MacArthur’s ministry) endorsement of the book is even more disturbing as his statement mirrors John Piper contemplative spirituality:
“We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 135:15-18). So the key to sanctification and spiritual maturity is a simple principle: As we set our affections on Christ and keep Him at the center of all our thoughts, activities, desires, and ambitions, we are transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
Barry E. Horner also echo’s concern on page 192 of Future Israel when he writes: ‘This is not an insignificant point since it is common today, especially within Reformed Christianity as Thomas Smail pointed out in The Forgotten Father, for an incorrect prominence to be given to Jesus Christ (as though impossible to challenge) that results in biblical distortion.’”
As far as meditation on Christ alone being the one “simple” principle for sanctification as stated by Phil Johnson above, Dr. Jay E. Adams states:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Where did this eclipsing Christ standard of truth come from? And does it add to the genealogy hypothesis? (http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ) (Revised: http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). You be the judge. The following are excerpts from the Australian Forum archives, one excerpt per article:
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church falls under the bondage of legalism.
…faith and never want to lose it, and may even fear that if any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …
From “The Centrality of the Gospel”: evangelical preaching has contributed more to the eclipse of the Bible than we would ever dare to imagine.
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away from Christ and transferred to either our renewal or …[same statement used in at least three other articles].
They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness!
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, the church … and rapturous experience) of having Christ come into the heart—and then …
When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, … grace alone, on account of Christ’s obedience alone, and received by faith alone …
truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the …
Church history may be seen as a struggle to keep law and gospel in proper tension. When the law is emphasized so as to eclipse the glory of the gospel, …
Because they are put in the very room of the gospel! They are used to eclipse or displace Christ’s imputed righteousness! “That glory cannot be taken away …
… any other truth is emphasized, it will eclipse the wonderful message of salvation. …. Similarly, non-believers may reject the gospel because of their …
Tavard explains that when Luther began his work as a Reformer, the gospel was in “partial eclipse.” The Council of Trent, however, “reformulated” the gospel …
These sample statements were gleaned from the AF archives by a cursory search. Uneclipsing the Son (or his works) is a dominate theme that saturates AF doctrine.
Legacies are usually determined by how we end. This brings to mind something that we may want to meditate on often: the call to persevere. Christ didn’t say meditating on Him makes perseverance easy or guarantees that He will do it for us. MacArthur may not believe that, but he certainly lends credibility to those who do. Will the last leg of his ministry be remembered as lending creditability to Antinomians and even embracing their doctrines? I think it’s very likely.
If I had to bet, would I bet that I will find uncanny parallels between Holland’s new book and the AF archives? Absolutely. I am working on several side-by-side quotation charts, I trust that “Dr.” Holland will have a significant contribution to the comparisons.
paul
Frank Turk Helps Case Against New Calvinism Before Excommunicating Me From Pyro
“So, is understanding Piper like going to college? Are there prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it?”
“Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down: ‘Going forward, ‘Paul’ will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.’ ”
As Susan and many of my close friends know, the ill effects of New Calvinist theology on real life hits close to home for me. For me, this isn’t intriguing theological debate—I see the debris that is continually being cleaned up after this hideous doctrine. One writer called John Piper “the elder statesman of New Calvinism.” Yes, him: the one, who among other things, proclaims with certainty how someone who is genuinely saved will feel during the conversion process—apparently, they will always have joy. But the problem is how many of us, especially in western culture, and especially a new Christian, might interpret “joy.” Isn’t dogma concerning how we”feel” during conversion a subject that is best left alone lest it sets up a stumbling block to salvation? (As I have personally witnessed). Not for John Piper—he fearlessly pontificates with all confidence concerning such matters, like other New Calvinist such as Tim Keller who recently proclaimed that those who are genuinely saved must also repent of all “good works” that they did while they were unbelievers.
The insanity that is New Calvinism matters not to those I used to deeply respect among Evangelical leaders. John MacArthur and his closest associate, Phil Johnson, are absolutely hell-bent on lending creditability to the likes of John Piper via association and accolades. Phil Johnson authors a blog named Pyromaniacs. I have visited Pyro on two occasions (with multiple visits within a short time frame for each occasion)—at the behest of a friend: yesterday, and a year ago because of dialogue that was occurring there that my friend wanted me to be privy to.
Before I continue, the purpose of this post is to reveal the fact that Pyro will defend Piper for any reason and at all cost. Why? Have they, including MacArthur, become New Calvinist? I’m beginning to think so. The exchange also enabled me to better articulate what Piper teaches, which is very opportune because of his mastery in deceptive doublespeak. The latter is my primary purpose. If you want to skip all the drama and focus on that, see the two GREEN sections.
The latest topic was another open letter to John Piper authored by a member of the Pyro Team of authors, Frank Turk. The letter was like the last one I was referred to which was a “gee whiz, pweeze stop saying stuff wike that because we wuv you soooo much and it’s getting harder and harder and harder to defend you.” After being accused by Turk on an initial comment of being off-topic, I noted the first comment by another Pyro Team member (Dan Phillips) to make sure I was perceived as being on-topic regarding further comments:
Another stellar letter. Thanks, Frank.
I may say more later, but for now let me join you in affirming my own appreciation for and personal indebtedness to John Piper. Those factors don’t dull the concern I feel for Piper’s attempt here to help Warren; they heighten that concern. I think the interview neither helps Warren personally, nor does it help his perception in the eyes of those who are concerned about his (to be charitable) many missteps.
My comment that caused a disturbance was the following:
In light of Elizabeth’s comment and, [Frank Turks answer to it] “I read Ms. Taylor as saying that the radical anti-Warren crowd is disowning Piper without grasping Piper. I agree with her,” I assume the following is on-subject: I am completely indifferent to who Piper associates with because I have formed judgments about what Piper believes based on what he says and what he writes.
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value” (see Matthew 26 and Hebrews 11 on that ridiculous notion). My concern is for those he associates with more than anything.
A comment came later by a Pyro reader that challenged my accusation:
Paul, your comments should be retracted if you cannot back them up with evidence. Anyone who has spent time in Piper’s works already knows that you have either grossly misinterpreted his positions (at best) or are simply slandering him (at worst). Either way, you should retract the statements.
The challenge was pulled down by Turk later. Here is my response:
1. He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
2. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions: “Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).” [Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his “Desiring God” website].
“We [Christians] are enslaved to pleasure…” That’s not true about a Christian in ANY regard. Notice he cites Romans 6:17 which is in the past tense, but his statement is in the present tense speaking of the same condition of the past tense verse. How can he do that? Easy—he thinks justification and sanctification are the same regarding our role.
3. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing: From Another Gospel P.M. Dohse, p.111 concerning Piper’s sermon, God Strengthens Us by the Gospel:
“’I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone. I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.’
Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved.”
CONTINUE
4. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith:
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy” (Desiring God page 66).
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure” (Desiring God, page 68).
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (Desiring God page 67).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
5. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value”: “Unless a spontaneous affection for my person motivates you, your overtures are stripped of all moral value” (Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his Desiring God website).
Turk responded with a classic New Calvinist defense—if you haven’t read all of Piper’s books (what? 600 or so by now?), you can’t evaluate any of his particular statements:
Paul:
You have never read the book, “What Jesus Demands of the World”, by John Piper, have you?
So, is understanding Piper like going to college? There are prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it? However, after this, he did reply:
I have read Paul’s mini-thesis on Dr. Piper and have found it, um, shall we say “less than serious with the subject matter, [Frank, please just address the quotes that plainly demonstrate my accusations] but very serious in terms of offensiveness.” It’s out, and if it turns up again, it will get deleted again [thanks for the warning Frank—like I would try to repost it—you take yourself waaaay too seriously].
Paul: for your own edification, [thanks Frank, got anything on discernment?] here’s my single-subject justification for deleting your posts [because you can’t answer the others].
You said:
[QUOTE]
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the complete text of that sermon
The context for this sermon is a supplement to his 3-year preaching through the book of Romans — Rom 7-8, for example. You’ve read it, I am sure: [no Frank, I didn’t take that Piper prerequisite course] “we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive,” “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me,” “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” But also “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.”
So Piper’s starting point is not whether there is a command to general obedience, or whether we ought to seek to do it: it is Paul’s own words which tell us that seeking justification of ourselves through the Law is only going to bring condemnation — thus we are wretched men. [But Frank, one of my points is that he then projects that point onto sanctification].
And his text for the sermon is 1 Tim 1:5-11. “we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person” and so on [your not going to answer the question, are you?].
You are concerned that he says this much: ” if the law has done its condemning and convicting work to bring you to Christ for justification and transformation, then it is not made for you any more …”
But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: “– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.”
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message [no, he later projects the justification point onto the subject of sanctification—making the two equal]. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper [no, you are slandering me, I assume, unwittingly, because you can’t decipher Piper’s deceptive doublespeak].
Don’t do that. This is your only warning.
Turk then pulled down my posts that I copied above, which I commented on:
Frank,
The fact that you pulled my posts while only addressing the more nuanced statement by Piper is telling. The fact that neither you, nor anyone else will address Piper’s outrageous statements in Desiring God is also telling. And, I find the linguistic demeanor that suggests that posting here is some kind of privilege….well, arrogant and laughable.
That initiated this lame response from Dan Phillips:
Yeah, it’s “telling” that we have a policy of trying to keep comments on the topic of the post, which your personal hobby-horse/vendetta isn’t.
And for general edification: the position that Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se, is neither fringe nor heresy.
Obviously, my comments were on topic. Turk is the one who opened the floor to the whole “condemning Piper without grasping Piper” thing. Hobby-horse? Vendetta? I checked. Of the 218 articles posted on my blog right now, a search turned-up zero on “John Piper” that are presently posted, but I remember one that I can’t find. In fact, someone who was apparently involved in the conversation over at Pyro emailed me and complained that they couldn’t find any of my articles on Piper. What is Phillips talking about? A New Calvinist hobby-horse? Well, he would be correct about that, but you know, somebody has to tell the truth. Accolades are not the truth just because they are accolades.
Furthermore, what’s up with, “Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se,” Huh? What’s the difference in light of Paul telling Timothy that “all Scrpture” is profitable for making the man of God fully equipped? What Scripture equips us and which doesn’t? Nothing in the Law of Moses equips us? And as far as living by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), is it not that per se, but this per se? Does Phillips even know what he’s saying? I doubt it.
Meanwhile, Piper Koolaid Drinker extraordinaire, Mike Ricardo, said this to the reader who launched the original challenge:
You’re welcome to venture into this with Paul, but just know that he’s already ground this axe some time ago — in fact, almost a year ago to the day [this should reveal how enamored I am with the Pyro team]. This is his pet issue, and despite the lengths to which responses have gone, there seems to be no arrival in his understanding.
Add to that the fact that this post has nothing to do with Piper’s theology of Law and Gospel, but with his recent interview with Rick Warren [then why did Phillips make the opening comment that he made?].
The individual who first challenged me then typed this Extreme Anti-Berean Team statement:
Mike Riccardi,
thanks for the heads up. I should have known better. [CLICK, that was easy! Is it now any wonder why Pyro has the following that they have?]
I made this final appeal:
Frank,
I’m not too sure you guy’s KNOW my motives; forgive me if I don’t take that to the bank just yet. So, you guys have no problem with the 6 quotes from Desiring God. Ok, fair enough, but just do me one last favor; I will not even respond—I will let your answer stand as it is for your readers and will be instructed by it—as my promise not to respond should indicate. Fair enough? And besides, you did respond to it—I’m just requesting a final clarification.
First, you said:
“But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: ‘– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.’
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper.”
But Frank, he goes on to say: “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.” How does that jive with John 17:17 and John 14:15,16? Is he not saying that as believers, we have to go through the “gospel” first before the law—and if we don’t, we are acting as if the power is in the letter of the law instead of the Spirit? And what does it mean to love through the gospel as opposed to loving through the law? What does that even mean? Our love is defined by “gospel” and not “law”? Frank, is this not a fair question? AND, the law and the gospel are for justification, but moving forward—only the gospel is applicable for sanctification? Forgive me if it is eerily similar to, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.”
Second, and lastly, and I will bother you no more:
On point 3, I cite his entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is “us”? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need “strengthening”—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, apparently, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: “Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here”;
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone”
BUT then he concludes, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE with:
“I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.”
Frank, he is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need the gospel, and being “strengthened in you own strength” is the object. AND, this is an *either/or* hermeneutic that implies that it is either all God (gospel—ever read ”God is the Gospel”?) OR all “us.” But in John 14:16, which is connected to verse 15 by the conjunction “and,” (as translated by the Bible of choice according to Piper, the ESV), the Holy Spirit is called a “helper.” What is he helping us with? It’s in verse 15—loving Christ by keeping his commandments! So, how do we know when our “own efforts “ are our “own strength” instead of God’s? What’s the difference between striving to obey with the Spirit’s “help” and being strengthened by the strength God gives “according to the gospel” which also necessitates the law to condemn for justification, but now only the “gospel” apart from the law is needed?
Are these not fair questions?
Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down:
Going forward, “Paul” will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.
Frank, I’m not sure, but I have a hunch that I will get over it.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment