The Only Real Difference Between First and Second Generation Biblical Counseling is Romans 8:30
“Are two different gospels operating under the same nomenclature of ‘help can be found here’ acceptable or not? Both are not the truth, and one or the other will help, or add further hurt.”
Heath Lambert recently published the book, The Biblical Counseling Movement After Adams. The contemporary motif of our day is the idea that Dr. Jay E. Adams started the biblical counseling movement (first generation), and then others such as David Powlison of Westminster’s CCEF built on the foundation laid by Adams. The ever-morphing result is called “second generation” biblical counseling. Lambert’s book is a lengthy treatise that supposedly informs us of the differences between the two generations.
I am going to bypass all of those issues and focus on the one difference that matters—how each generation interprets the gospel. As the president of the annexed NANC used to say, “Fasten your seatbelts and put on your crash helmets,” because my thesis is that one of these generations is founded on, and operates by a false gospel.
As many know, especially my wife, I have spent almost five years researching the present-day New Calvinism movement. The movement has its roots in the Progressive Adventist movement fathered by Robert Brinsmead. The magnum opus of that movement was their interpretation of Romans 8:30. I will pause now and quote an individual who witnessed that remarkable movement firsthand:
In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
“The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ” (Martin L. Carey: Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening )
Brinsmead further articulated this magnum opus in the theological journal, Present Truth:
Then in the golden chain of salvation, Romans 8:30, justification spans our Christian life all the way from calling or conversion to glorification: “Whom He called, them He justified; whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Here justification, our standing before God, is coterminous with sanctification, our being conformed to the image of God’s Son, in Romans 8:29. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 the apostle mentions Christ as our righteousness or justification before he names Him as our sanctification. But in 1 Corinthians 6:11 the order is reversed: “You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Accordingly, Luther taught that to accept justification by faith in Christ is our whole work for the whole Christian life. We never learn this too well. For the forgiveness of sins is a continuous divine work until we die. Christ saves us perpetually (Luther’s Works, American ed. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955- ), Vol.34, pp.164, 167, 190) [Present Truth: volume 25, pages 11,12].
Now, the term, “golden chain of salvation” did not originate with Brinsmead, but when that term was used by theologians of old, it doesn’t seem to be in reference to Romans 8:30. The term seems to have a contemporary meaning when associated with Romans 8:30, and that is how it will be used in this post. Furthermore, Brinsmead attributes the magnum opus of Progressive Adventism to Martin Luther, and Carey attributes it to Brinsmead who again, states that he learned it from the writings of Luther.
But the need for further research aside, this post will focus on the what. And the what is the following:
[1] Brinsmead’s interpretation of Romans 8:30 combines justification and sanctification, and perpetuates the need for a just standing before God until glorification.
[2] And the need for a progressive justification until glorification, ie.,“Christ saves us perpetually.”
[3] And sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because it is “coterminous” with Justification. “Conterminous” means, 1. having the same border or covering the same Area 2. being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
[4] This Romans 8:30 golden chain can be definitively traced throughout the New Calvinism community as a single mainframe that holds the doctrine together and determines its modus operandi.
[5] The Romans 8:30 golden chain manifests itself as, Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Christian Hedonism which all dwell in the community of New Calvinism.
Hence, New Calvinists can run, but they can’t hide—their interpretation of Romans 8:30 identifies them. And it also identifies what they will teach, and how they will counsel.
The Two Romans 8:30 and Their Gospels
Therefore, one version of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are the same, and justification is perpetual till glorification. The second interpretation of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are completely separate; and justification is a finished work that makes sanctification possible, but does not directly power it. This position would hold that sanctification is powered by regeneration, and not justification. Hence, Romans 8:30 is missing sanctification because justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification.
These are two completely different gospels. One is monergistic substitutionary sanctification, and the other is monergistic justification and synergistic sanctification. How the gospel is presented from each of these different viewpoints must necessarily be radically different. Moreover, counseling is necessarily, and radically different as well.
And these two views of Romans 8:30 define the difference between the two generations of biblical counseling. David Powlison says so. In a seminar presented by David Powlison at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical, Powlison stated the following:
This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that. I – it’s one of those places where I read Ephesians. I read Galatians. I read Romans. I read the gospels themselves. I read the Psalms. And the grace of God is just at every turn, and these are written for Christians (David Powlison: What is Biblical Counseling May 8, 2010. Online source for MP3s ; http://goo.gl/Dumep).
David Powlison’s mentor, Dr. John Miller, whom he mentions in the above citation, was the father of Sonship Theology. Jay Adams wrote a book in contention against the doctrine in 1999. By way of reiterating Powlison’s articulation, Adam’s made the following statement on page 34 of Biblical Sonship:
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 a strong motive for it….On the other hand, regeneration, (quickening, or making alive; Ephesians 2:25) is the true source of sanctification.
The major difference between the first and second generations of biblical counseling is their gospel models. One model will attempt to help people with the reductionist gospel of sanctification by justification. The other will attempt to help people with the full armor of regeneration.
Though CCEF is a lost cause and was wicked from its conception, the realty of how counselors interpret Romans 8:30 is a gut-check for the president and board members of the critically ill NANC. Are two different gospels operating under the same nomenclature of “help can be found here” acceptable or not? Both are not the truth, and one or the other will help, or add further hurt.
Let’s be honest, how important is truth to those who claim to be in the truth business?
paul
Classic New Calvinist Double Speak: Tchividjian; Christians Are Not Totally Depraved, But they are Totally Depraved
Again, as I am getting further and further behind schedule because New Calvinist heretics continue to herald outrageous error while cowardly HIV’s (highly respected leaders with international visibility) remain silent, I have to stop in the middle of a project to address something that I stumbled across while doing research. Apparently, questions about New Calvinism’s total depravity of the saints are causing enough stir to demand some answers. So Tullian Tchividjian (hereafter: TT) wrote a response on his blog.
As he sat down to write his response, a little mouse overheard him talking to himself and reported the following to me after running all the way up here from Florida:
“Hmmmm, how ate-up in the brains are my beloved Kool-aid drinking followers? Should I just plainly admit it, or use doublespeak? I don’t think they are quite ready for the whole truth yet, so I will use doublespeak. Now let me see, how can I say that we are totally depraved, while saying at the same time that we aren’t? Hmmmmm.”
Does the mouse story seem farfetched? So what? Christians will believe anything these days—why can’t I have some fun? TT’s treatise on how we are totally depraved, but not totally depraved, can be read here. First, TT gets us warmed up with a traditional view of what totally depravity is, and isn’t. Ie., it doesn’t mean we are all as evil as we could be because of God’s restraints. TT spends the first half of the post on that, and cites five Bible references.
After assenting to the fact that we are born again (and keep in mind that the New Calvinist definition of the new birth is NOT orthodox), he states the following:
But once God regenerates us by his Spirit, draws us to himself, unites us to Christ, raises us from the dead, and grants us status as adopted sons and daughters, is there any sense in which we can speak of Christian’s being totally depraved?
Yes.
I, by no means, am going to stop here and write a book on what New Calvinists really believe about the new birth, but notice in his statement that he stops short of a description of new creaturehood. The apostle Paul said of the new birth:
2 Corinthians 5:17
Wherefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old things are passed away; behold, they are become new.
One might also note that TT conveniently leaves out the fact that the old man died with Christ’s death which means the power of sin over us is broken:
What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin (Romans 6:1-7).
TT then continues to build on his thesis:
Theologians speak of total depravity, not only in terms of “total inability” to come to God on our own because we’re spiritually dead, but also in terms of sin’s effect: sin corrupts us in the “totality” of our being. Our minds are affected by sin. Our hearts are affected by sin. Our wills are affected by sin. Our bodies are affected by sin. This is at the heart of Paul’s internal struggle that he articulates in Romans 7: “For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.”
Note what he is stating here carefully—words mean things: because we are still affected by sin in our mortal bodies, or because it is still there—there is still a “total inability” to come to God in the same way that there was before we were saved. In other words, and for all practical purposes, sanctification is a continual coming to Christ by faith. TT relates this further by writing in the same post:
Paul’s testimony demonstrates that even after God saves us, there is no part of us that becomes sin free–we remain sinful and imperfect in all of our capacities, in the “totality” of our being. Even after God saves us, our thoughts, words, motives, deeds, and affections need the constant cleansing of Christ’s blood and the forgiveness that comes our way for free.
No it’s different. Sin’s relationship to us as believers is not the same as when we were unbelievers—it’s present, but its power over us is broken. TT at the very least deemphasizes that, and for the most part denies it. But the smoking gun here is the fact that TT reveals a theological flaw in New Calvinist thinking that repentance unto salvation and repentance in sanctification are the same. This reflects their belief that the relationship to sin and its power over us is the same as it was when we were unregenerate. Again, words mean things—what does the “blood” refer to? It refers to our justification, or Christ’s death on the cross for our “washing” (1Cor.6:11). But we don’t need that kind of washing/forgiveness anymore; we only need forgiveness for sin in sanctification that disrupts our relationship to the Father as adopted sons (John 13:9-11).
TT then elaborates on how New Calvinism fleshes out in an unbiblical fusion of sanctification and justification:
The reason this is so important is because we will always be suspicious of grace (“yes grace, but…”) until we realize our desperate need for it. Our dire need for God’s grace doesn’t get smaller after God saves us–in one sense, it actually gets bigger. Christian growth, says the Apostle Peter, is always “growth into grace”, not away from it. Many Christians think that becoming sanctified means that we become stronger and stronger, more and more competent.
And,
The truth is, however, that Christian growth and progress involves coming to the realization of just how weak and incompetent we continue to be and how strong and competent Jesus continues to be for us. Spiritual maturity is not marked by our growing, independent fitness. Rather, it’s marked by our growing dependence on Christ’s fitness for us. Because we are daily sinners, we need God’s daily distributions of free grace that come our way as a result of Christ’s finished work. Christian growth involves believing and embracing the fact that, even as a Christian, you’re worse than you think you are but that God’s grace toward you in Christ is much bigger than you could ever imagine.
In other words, total depravity is a good thing because the more we realize how sinful we are, the smaller we get and the bigger the cross and our need for it becomes. This can be illustrated by the following chart published by a New Calvinist organization:
Basically, this is indicative of the New Calvinist gospel that makes much of sin so that Jesus is magnified. It is the antithesis of the true gospel.
TT concludes:
Because of total depravity, you and I were desperate for God’s grace before we were saved. Because of total depravity, you and I remain desperate for God’s grace even after we’re saved.
Thankfully, though our sin reaches far, God’s grace reaches infinitely farther.
Conclusion? We are still totally depraved. And what is really the difference between this and the apostle’s literary gasp concerning the amplification of sin so grace can abound?
In my book, nothing.
paul
Two Roads to Hell Named “Gospel”
It happened again on Facebook. A twenty- something professing Christian posting casual information about cohabitation with a boyfriend/girlfriend. What struck me about it was the following: as in other cases that I have seen and heard about, the shameless normality in which the information is shared.
Why is this the norm of our day? Answer: the gospel. The gospel means “good news,” and since the Fifties there has been two primary gospels preached in America and both are great news to most people. The first gospel (from the 50’s to the 90’s) emphasized the importance of believing that Christ died for our sins, and if you believed that, you were going to heaven. Obeying the ten commandments was a nice thing to do for Jesus, but optional. Even if you later denied Christ and the gospel, you were still saved, and keeping the law was optional. After all, we aren’t saved by the law, so how important could it be? Just in case you think that’s a generalization, consider these quotes from the book, “Eternal Security” written by evangelical superstar Charles Stanley:
PAGE 6 “As long as I have an ongoing role in the salvation process, my natural tendency will be to focus on my behavior rather than on Christ.”
PAGE 7 “People who are constantly examining their spiritual condition tend to fall into the trap of legalism.”
PAGE 200 “But isn’t it true that people who believe they must maintain some kind of good works in order to stay saved are trusting in themselves for their eternal security?”
PAGE 195 “Placing the responsibility for maintaining salvation on the believer is adding works to grace. Salvation would no longer be a gift. It would be a trade – our faithfulness for His faithfulness.”
PAGE 7 “Show me a believer who is caught up in trying to maintain God’s acceptance through good works, and I will show you a fragile saint. My experience has been that these are the people who on the surface appear to be completely sold out to personal holiness and purity but who suddenly disappear. It is not unusual for these well-meaning types to end up in a lifestyle completely opposite of what they once stood for.”
PAGE 93 “Even if a believer for all practical purposes becomes an unbeliever, his salvation is not in jeopardy.”
PAGE 72 “The Bible clearly teaches that God’s love for His people is of such magnitude that even those who walk away from the faith have not the slightest chance of slipping from His hand.”
PAGE 93 “Christ will not deny an unbelieving Christian his or her salvation because to do so would be to deny Himself. Why? Faithful or not, every person who has at any time had saving faith is a permanent part of the body of Christ.”
PAGE 104 “In Christ, the requirements of God’s holiness have been completely fulfilled!”
PAGE 63 “According to Jesus, what must a person do to keep from being judged for sin? Must he stop doing something? Must he promise to stop doing something? Must he have never done something? The answer is so simple that many stumble all over it without ever seeing it. All Jesus requires is that the individual “believe in” Him.”
Then more good news came in the latter Nineties. The first gospel didn’t emphasize the law enough, but the second gospel places very strong emphasis on the law. But the news is still good; Jesus obeys the law for us! In fact, it was part of the atonement; His perfect obedience was imputed to our sanctification! Moreover, even the relaxed approach to the law in the first gospel was legalism! So relax, be happy, live in peace with thy girlfriend. As one of the propagators of this second gospel has said,
The irony, of course, is that it’s only when we stop obsessing over our own need to be holy and focus instead on the beauty of Christ’s holiness that we actually become more holy! Not to mention, we start to become a lot easier to live with! Will someone please keep reminding me of this? (Tullian Tchividjian, Accountability Groups: The Tyranny of Do More, Try Harder).
And trust me, everyone is getting the message.
Besides, why bother with keeping the law? After all, as second gospel guru Paul David Tripp has stated in regard to Christians, “When you are dead you can’t do anything” (p. 64, How People Change 2006). Likewise, CJ Mahaney: “We [who is “we”?] are [present tense] enemies of God. We are God ignoring. We are God defying. We hate God” (2009 Resolved Conference).
Hence, compare the following quotes from these second gospel gurus to those of Stanley:
Francis Chan: “To change our hearts, what we value, what we risk, how we act, we don’t need more guilt or more rules, we just need to be in love with God. Because when you’re wildly in love with someone, it changes everything.”
DA Carson: “In this broken world, it is not easy to promote holiness without succumbing to mere moralism; it is not easy to fight worldliness without giving in to a life that is constrained by mere rules.”
John Piper: “So the key to living the Christian life – the key to bearing fruit for God – the key to a Christ-exalting life of love and sacrifice – is to die to the law and be joined not to a list of rules, but to a Person, to the risen Christ. The pathway to love is the path of a personal, Spirit-dependent, all-satisfying relationship with the risen Christ, not the resolve to keep the commandments.”
Tullian Tchividjian: “A taste of wild grace is the best catalyst for real work in our lives: not guilt, not fear, not another list of rules.”
These two gospels are two roads to hell. Why? Because both gospels restrict saving faith / belief to limited knowledge of the true gospel. Both limit saving faith to what Jesus did to make our entry into the kingdom possible, and not its purpose. “Jesus died for our sins, just believe that.” No, there is more. Jesus died for the purpose of setting us apart. The biblical word is “sanctification”:
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1Corinthians 6:9-11).
But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth (2Thess. 2:13).
In other words, the Spirit’s purpose is to set us apart, and Christ died for our sins to make that possible, resulting in us being declared righteous by the Father. Any gospel that excludes that purpose thereof is a half gospel:
It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality (1Thess.4:3).
The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work (1John 3:8).
Therefore, the “new convert” supposes that Jesus only died to save us, and “enters the kingdom” indifferent to one of the primary reasons Christ died for us—to set us apart from the rest of the world unto the Father as a peculiar people. Hence, Facebook. Yea, flaunt thy supposed “festival of freedom.” After all, he only died to save us. Supposedly. For the true Christian beholding the heart of Christ and his purpose of setting us apart unto the Father, and His willingness to leave Heaven and obey the cruel cross—I beg you to tell me—how can being like the world be like business as usual? Furthermore, how can any man claiming to be a bishop of God tell us not to “obsess” over our holiness? It is the very essence of being a saint. It is what we signed up for. According to Mark G. Cambron, D.D. in Bible Doctrines:
Again we emphasis that the words “holiness,” “sanctification,” and “saint” all come from the same word meaning “set apart,” “separation.” The word “sanctify” in Exodus 13:2, and the word ‘holiness” in Psalm 29:2, and the word “saints” of Psalm 34:9 are the same word. The word “sanctify” of John 17:17, and the word “saint” of Philippians 1:1, and the word ‘holiness” of Hebrews 12:10 are all from the same word.
The call of the true gospel is a call to believe in the works of Christ and a commitment to be set apart according to His will. It is a call to embrace Him as Savior and Lord. It is most certainly an obsession with truth and holiness. It recognizes that being born again is to be set apart by the Spirit. Christ went to the cross to see this happen in His children, resulting in the destruction of the devil’s work. How it must grieve the Holy Spirit and Christ when we not only do the world’s bidding, but report it to others in casual fashion.
And because of this, should not the wording of the gospel be of major concern when we present it? How is it that the gurus of the second gospel proudly herald a five word gospel: “Christ died for our sins”? And then even go as far as to say that we live by that as well! How is it that John Piper presents the gospel in “one sentence,” excludes sanctification, and then says, “that’s the gospel”?
It is not the gospel. It is a half gospel. Both of these gospels breed an indifference for one of the primary reasons Christ went to the cross—sanctification. And by the way, the word of God is the standard for what that separation is and the knowledge to obtain it. It is not just law, it is every word that comes from the mouth of God that we live by (Matthew 4:4).
paul
How Kinky Does it Have to Get? Stuart Scott et al Don’t Care
I have never been much for getting into the more bizarre aspects of New Calvinism, but we know that errant theology leads to life getting stranger and stranger. This post is about well-known Christians and their determination to associate with bizarre sects of New Calvinism. Without a doubt, the best example is my old stomping grounds, Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio.
Clearcreek is still a training center for the National Association of Nouthetic Counselers and is on NANC’s national referral list. The Chapel is frequented by guest speakers such as Robert Jones, Paul David Tripp, Stuart Scott, and Lou Priolo. Apparently, Martha Peace has an ongoing teaching arrangement with Clearcreek as well. PPT has sent most of these folks letters asking them to not grant Clearcreek credibility in this way, but to no avail. Scott’s basic response was, “Not my problem.”
So, what doesn’t matter to these folks? Primarily, it doesn’t matter that one of Clearcreek Chapel’s staff elders (over adult education) is Chad Bresson, a former Christian radio personality. Bresson is one of the charter members of the Earth Stove Society which is a fringe group that promotes New Covenant Theology. Bresson authors the blog, Vossed World which is dedicated to the Bible Theology of Geerhardus Vos.
Vos has a cult following from this group. Literally. NCT fringe groups lead yearly pilgrimages to Vos’ gravesite in Pennsylvania to pay homage to Vos. Bresson led such a pilgrimage last year that was nothing short of a worship service. Bresson himself stood before Vos’ headstone and wept while reading from books written by Vos. Shockingly, Bresson posted the affair on his Facebook page and the information was forwarded to PPT.
“Standing in the midst of the obvious decay that is the hallmark of the already, speaks of the inbreaking ‘not yet’ through lumped throat and wet eyes.”
Just last week, I had the following encounter with an advocate of NCT and acquaintance of Bresson’s in the PPT comment section of a post:
My dear anti-Pneumian friend, we are heading there in a few weeks for our winter Pilgrimage . . . we will be sure to light a prayer candle or two for you at his shrine as we offer up prayers on our special new covenant Rosary to our beloved patron Saint Geerhardus. May he grant to you out of his treasury of grace to be spared some time in purgatory. Until then, walk in the power of the Spirit and be filled with the joy and wonder of the Gospel!
Jack,
I would be inclined to think you are kidding, but I know Bresson all too well, so, I think you are serious about this. If Vos shows up, take good notes and I will let you write a guest piece here.
Also troubling is Bresson’s outright denial of a literal, instructive approach to Scripture. Bresson believes the Holy Spirit only illumines the word when it is approached as a gospel narrative for purposes of Gospel Contemplationism. Any use of the Bible for instructive purposes is to use the Bible in the same way that the Pharisees used the Torah (Vossed World blog: “The Word of God is a Person,” 7/17/2008 archives). As the foremost respected theologian at Clearcreek Chapel, the idea that every single verse in the Bible must be read as concerning Christ and the gospel can be seen in the following post by another Chapel teacher: Clearcreek Chapel Biblical Theological Study Center blog: “Interpreting the Unfolding Drama the Way Jesus Did,” student archives 2/19/2011, by Max Strange. Online source: http://clearcreekbtsc.blogspot.com).
The Clearcreek elders are so bent on not implementing instruction in counseling that on at least one occasion, according to a former counselee I talked to, they will draw pictures of the person’s life on a piece of paper and illustrate were the counselee is located in the picture. I witnessed a testimony firsthand in which a Clearcreek elder said a marriage was miraculously transformed before his eyes by merely showing forth the gospel from the Scriptures in the first counseling session. When I confronted the elders about it, the response was, “Oh, that’s just Dan.”
Even by NANC standards, the fact that NANC associates with them and refers people there who have deep problems is unconscionable.
Another example is New Calvinist Mark Driscoll who has been a keynote speaker at such events like CCEF’s 2009 national conference at the behest of David Powlison. The following video in which he claims to see visions is self-explanatory:
Truly, New Calvinists like John Piper and CJ Mahaney must get together and giggle about what they can actually get away with. The following video documents their strange “The Scream of the Damned” concoction. This actually took place at the 2009 resolved conference sponsored by John MacArthur’s church. The fact that Grace Community Church would host such nonsense speaks for itself. Following are quotes concerning the message and then the 2009 resolved promo trailer:
CJ spoke of our Savior’s cry, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?” And though I have contemplated that amazing cry often, never did it hit me as hard as in CJ’s message, when he referred to it as “the scream of the Damned.”
Then there was break and music and announcements, and John Piper stood up to bring his message. Several of us had prayed in a back room that God would anoint John, and pick right up where He left off in the previous message, and wow, did He. John referred repeatedly to the “scream of the Damned,” and then moved into Romans 8.
A flood of tears came as God preached the message to me yet again. That Deity would be Damned. That the God who is called upon righteously by the saints and angels in heaven to damn people, and called upon habitually by unbelievers flippantly and unrighteously to damn people, would in fact damn his Son, would (from the Son’s willingness to drink the cup) damn himself…for us. That it could be said of the Beloved One, “God damned Him,” and that He screamed the scream of the Damned….it was too much for me. It is too much for me this moment. And in the ages to come it will continue to be too much for me.
~ Randy Acorn
Everything exists to magnify the worth of the scream of the damned. That’s the point of the universe. What we will do forever in heaven is magnify the worth of the scream of the damned. Calvary will not be forgotten. It is the most-horrible, most sinful, most agonizing event that ever was – it will be the center of heaven forever. Hell exists, cross exists, sin exists, heaven exists, you exist, universe exists, in order to magnify the worth of the scream of the damned. What is the apex of the revelation of the grace of God? And the answer is the scream of the damned on the cross.
~ John Piper from his sermon on “The Screamed of the Damned.”
How Most Pastors Today Use The Bible
“….if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.”
I’m wondering; can we begin calling our present day, “The Age of the Australian Forum”? If you really want to understand what’s going on in the church theologically, read the Forum’s journal: Present Truth Magazine. It can be obtained online for free through a Progressive Adventist church that archived most of the issues.
The Forum’s hermeneutic was based on their thesis, the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us (COGOUS) which is supposedly the lost doctrine of the Reformation. It’s monergism on steroids. We are so wicked and totally depraved, that objective truth can only be outside of us. When truth starts being processed inside of us, the only result can be subjectivism.
What to do then? Answer: focus on central truth that is the “power of the gospel.” Basically, gospel, gospel, and more gospel transforms us into Christ likeness. We need to saturate ourselves with information about the works of Christ, not anything we would do. Hence, pithy truisms like, “Not, ‘What would Jesus do?’ But, ‘What has Jesus done.’”
Supposedly, saturating ourselves with what Jesus has done, not anything that we would do fills our hearts with gratitude and makes us willing and joyful participants in obedience. However, the key is to focus on gospel and then allow works to flow from that. Obedience when we don’t feel like it, or out of duty, is not “done in love” And, the point isn’t how well we do that—because we are not “under law, but under grace.” The point is not to “obey in our own efforts.” Results are not the goal, we can’t affect any results anyway; the goal is to avoid “making our sanctification the basis of our justification.” In other words, all works must flow from justification truth and the “power of the gospel.” Just focus on gospel, and let the “active obedience of Christ” take care of the rest.
This is because Christ was not only obedient to the cross (known as His “passive” obedience), but also lived a perfect life so that His obedience for sanctification could be imputed to us as well (Christ’s “active” obedience). Hence, and don’t miss this, if we try to obey in sanctification, we are trying to accomplish works that have already been finished by Christ as part of the atonement, and thus making our sanctification the grounds of our justification because the two are fused together and part of the atonement with Christ living a perfect life here on Earth for one, and dying for the other. Got that? This makes sanctification very tricky business. At any time, we could be unwittingly “making our sanctification the grounds of our justification.”
Come now, admit it, we hear this lingo all the time reverberating throughout churchianity.
Where does the use of the Bible fit into all of this? Answer: it is a tool for the gospel contemplationism needed to transform us into the likeness of Christ. All of the commands in the Bible are to remind us of the fact that Christ obeyed all of them for us (this is the basis of the New Calvinist motto, “Christ for us”). Biblical imperatives are supposed to remind us of the futility of trying to keep them ourselves while invoking thankfulness for what Jesus has done “for us,” not anything we do. However, polity framework is considered to be a separate issue. They concede that the Bible contains guidelines for structuring the church, but that is for practical function and is separate from “spiritual formation.” Moreover, this view contends that the Holy Spirit only illumines when the Bible is used to see the gospel in a deeper and deeper way. And also, aside from practical use for structuring, seeing the Bible through the prism of gospel (ie., Christ the person and His works) interprets the Bible itself for all uses in “spiritual formation.”
Now, since Christ already fulfilled the law and imputed it to us, our goal isn’t to follow specific imperatives in the Bible, but rather to fulfill the “higher law of love” that Christ has instituted to replace the “fulfilled” law which is now abrogated by the “higher law of Christ.” What does that look like?! Answer: it looks like whatever the gospel produces! Because, when it’s the result of the gospel, it can’t be wrong! If the elders of your church are “saturated with the gospel”—they can’t be wrong, and it may, or may not look like “the dead letter of the law,” ie., biblical imperatives not seen in their “gospel context.” As Francis Chan states it: “When you are loving, you can’t sin.”
Look folks, this ministry sees this approach to the Bible fleshing itself out in real-life church situations daily: “But, but, how can they do this?! It is clearly against Scripture!” No, in their minds, it is against a law that has been abrogated by the higher law of Christ. “But, but, what’s that?” Answer: whatever results in the elders being saturated with the gospel, that’s what. And then there is the whole issue of New Calvinist elders poo—pooing church constitutions and by-laws. Trust me, if the higher law of love abrogates the law of Scripture, it sure as hell abrogated your by-laws. I find the incredulous demeanor of people who come to me with these reports both adorable and naive. It’s time for Christians to wake up and start drinking more coffee.
Let me tell you what the perfect cover is and why so many pastors get away with using the Bible this way. In fact, I will begin to explain with a question: how many great sermons can be preached about the awesomeness of Christ and all that He has done for us? Answer: how many books has John Piper written? And people rave about all of them! But what is missing? Answer: aside from a truckload, Matthew 7:24-27. One of the best friendships I have was brought about when she objected to an article I wrote along these lines, and mentioned a book by John Piper that was supposedly “full of biblical instruction.” I then responded and encouraged her to reread the book and list every biblical life application she could find. She did just that and contacted me by email: “Your right. This is a real eye opener.”
What prompted this post? I read this article here: article link. Read it for yourself and let me know if it rings any bells.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment