Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 8: The Brinsmead / Zens Affair Gives Birth To New Calvinism
As I continue to absorb an astounding document written by Jon Zens, “Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984),” the Zens/Brinsmead connection and its contribution to the birth of New Calvinism becomes evident. Zens’ essay covers the early years of the movement until the time when it took on a life of its own—1984.
Zens became a Calvinist in 1967 and joined Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Prospectville, PA in 1972. During this time, according to him, he began his quest into the “law/gospel issue.” He became a teacher there and started preparing Sunday school lessons that refuted Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Apparently, these theologies contradicted where he wanted to go with the law/gospel issue. At least ten students from Westminster Seminary were in his class. In the same timeframe, he became a student at Westminster and was receiving Present Truth (hereafter PT), the theological journal of the Australian Forum. It seems that the journal had a wide readership there because it was “the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at the time.” Hence, the father of New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and the Australian Forum were impregnating Westminster with elements of New Calvinism from the very beginning. The infusion of other Reformed Baptist such as John Piper could have happened in a number of different ways as Zens was a Reformed Baptist and PT had a wide readership among Reformed Baptist as well.
Furthermore, Zens moved to Nashville in 1975 and was writing articles for the Baptist Reformed Review (hereafter BRR) which was started by Norbert Ward in 1972. It is clear that Zens turned the magazine into a vessel for promoting a “Christ-centered approach to ethics.” In reading this historical account by Zens, it makes one’s head spin as it seems he was on a mission with a vengeance while living out of a suitcase—to create and spread some sort of new twist on “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” Nevertheless, the vessels at his disposal were very influential; and therefore, it is surprising that it has taken thirty-six years for this movement to arrive at its present zenith. BRR later became the official theological journal for the Continental Baptist who split from Reformed Baptist over NCT.
Meanwhile, the desire to synthesize justification and sanctification is nothing new. JC Ryle said: “ But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ—that is, justification and sanctification.” Overemphasizing Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit in order to do so is not that difficult. In fact, that’s exactly the error Ryle was contending with in his time. But in regard to eschatology, God’s emphasis on last things seems to bring up all kinds of pesky issues that eclipse the centrality of His Son, like Israel etc. What to do? Answer: invoke good ole’ fashioned Hagelian Historicism (pp. 67, 68, Tim Black: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos). It is clear that the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) was a think tank seeking to codify sanctification by justification alone into a unified theological system (with the primary motive of reforming Adventism). In doing this, law/gospel; obedience, and eschatology would have been key considerations. The Zens/Af connection filled the order.
Zens met with Brinsmead at length in 1979 and pointed out a contradiction in the AF’s view of law verses the centrality of Christ in evangelism. Zens said that the result was “brilliant” essays appearing in Verdict (formally PT). Zens wrote at least one article for the AF (when it was still PT) that apes the NC motif that any other consideration of Scripture apart from a redemptive-historical view is existentialism. This is also a major theme in Michael Horton’s writings. In 1981 and 1982, Zens spoke at “several” Verdict (AF seminars) seminars on the west coast, and admits that he changed the name of BRR to “Searching Together” in order to accommodate Adventist readers. Toward the end of the essay, Zens quotes Brinsmead from Judged by the Gospel in which Brinsmead states the AF’s affirmation that all of history must be seen through the gospel, a NCT staple.
It is clear that remnants of sanctification by justification alone were loosely about along with attempts to convert eschatology into a plenary gospel historicism, but there is little doubt that Zens and the AF were the ones who did the heavy lifting in regard to forming these ideas into a systematic theology. Without that systematic theology, the New Calvinism movement is not what it is today, if anything at all. In fact, Zens’ cohorts among Reformed Baptist (including John Reisinger, a longtime friend of Zens) sought to form their own association because they feared the “movement” would end up being a “flash in the pan.”
paul
New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 7: The Birth of New Covenant Theology
“Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.”
As things become clearer, it seems the crux of New Calvinism is sanctification by objective justification. What’s that? Simply stated: all things relevant focus on Christ and His works outside of us (what they call the gospel). Any consideration of ourselves (subjective) in the mix, and anything else other than Christ and His works amounts to Existentialism. All reality must be interpreted through the gospel. In fact, truth can be truth until it is taught without being seen through the interpretive lens of Christ—then it becomes error. So, we aren’t really born again—that’s a subjective interpretation and insinuates that we can have a part in the sanctification process. The new birth must be seen “in its gospel context.” Hence, the Australian Forum said the following about the new birth, and even election: “Those who preach ‘Ye must be born again’ as the gospel are preaching a false gospel.” And, “A doctrine of election which takes as its starting point a philosophical concept instead of the gospel makes the Father the center and not Christ. A doctrine of election apart from Christ is inimical to sanctification and not its powerful source” (Present Truth Magazine Archives Vol. 24 #2).
This interpretive prism can be seen clearly in what is taught by contemporary New Calvinist. A predominant mantra among them is the idea that we are unable to approach the Scriptures without personal presuppositions (subjective). Therefore, ideas must not be drawn from the text (exegesis) because that’s subjective—the text must be interpreted through the gospel (eisegesis). This is why contemporary New Calvinist, as with the Australian Form, deny the new birth from our perspective: “But to whom are we introducing people, to Christ or to ourselves? Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own ‘Spirit-filled’ life?” (Michael Horton, In The Face Of God).
Compare Horton’s quote with one of the Australian Three, G. Paxton:
“It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above
and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying” (Present Truth Archives Vol. 37 #4)
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, but let me now use this quote by Chad Bresson to further this point and lead us into our subject:
“New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality” (Vossed World, “What is New Covenant Theology?”).
Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology, was totally onboard with sanctification by objective justification. He wrote an article for the Australian Forum entitled “Why Existential Theology Is Bankrupt” (Id Vol. 37 #4). Though sanctification by objective justification was probably not original with the Australian Forum (but the jury is still out on that), they definitely called for a systematic theology that would reconcile that doctrine to Scripture in all areas, and they specifically called for a “framework” in the areas of history, covenants, and eschatology (Ibid Volume XLVI). G. Goldsworthy, one of the AF3, would have been priceless in regard to a historical and eschatological framework, but it is my contention that Jon Zens answered the call for a covenantal framework.
Dennis M. Swanson of Master’s Seminary stated in his “Introduction to New Covenant Theology” that though Zens is not a focal person in the movement at this time—“he really started the movement” (p.152). Swanson further states that he believes Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981 (p.153).
In an unusual document by Zens entitled Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984), by Jon Zens, 1984”—Zens writes the following:
“I started receiving Present Truth (now Verdict) at Westminster Seminary (1972). I didn’t read it much, however, until 1975. The emphasis on justification was helpful to me at this time [that would be sanctification by objective justification alone].
In August, 1979 — through a series of fluke circumstances — I heard about some unadvertised meetings at a Ramada Inn in Nashville. For three days the editor of Verdict, Robert D. Brinsmead [the editor of Present Truth and the primary leader of the Australian Forum, and one of the AF3], was addressing about 150 Adventist-oriented people. I came Friday night and spoke with RDB and Jack Zwemer in their motel room for about two hours. We also talked for another two hours on Sunday night.
I was impressed by Brinsmead’s teachable, open spirit. He obviously did not feel threatened by my pointed and probing questions. One area that I asked him about was the idea that the law had to do a “work” before the gospel could come to folks. His magazine had been permeated with this concept. I suggested that if all things are to be approached through Christ, why do we put the law ahead of Him in evangelism? Where in Acts were the Ten Commandments preached before the gospel? He said he thought I had some good points and that he would reflect upon them. On Sunday night I gave him Richard Gaffin’s The Centrality of the Resurrection, Meredith Kline’s The Structure of Biblical Authority, and all of the back issues of BRR.
In January, 1980, Brinsmead called from California, just before he was to leave for Australia. He said that he had read the back issues, that he thought we [note: “WE”—] were on to something important [emphasis mine], and that he would study these matters closely in Australia. In 1981 some brilliant essays appeared in Verdict. “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” “Jesus and the Law,” And “The Heart of N.T. Ethics” presented a Christ-centered approach to ethics. It was certainly heartening to see this shift by the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at that time (sadly, since mid-1984 RDB went markedly downhill [right, not only was he a Seventh-Day Adventist, but he is now openly apostate by all standards]).”
Zens elaborated on his interaction with Brinsmead and discussed several Australian Forum articles published in Present Truth (later, Verdict), in This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him (Searching Together. Summer-Winter 1997, Vol. 25:1,2,3. Pages 67-71) Zens attached the following footnote to the article: “I met Mr. Brinsmead in August 1979, asked him to consider the centrality of Christ in Christian obedience, and gave him some materials to read. In January 1980, Brinsmead called me and indicated that these redemptive-historical points were worthy of consideration and further study.”
Here, we perceive the very cradle of New Covenant Theology. While working through the issues himself, Zens confronted Brinsmead in regard to the AF’s view on the law’s relationship to justification—which Zens had been “helped” by (their view on justification) while at Westminster. Brinsmead then called Zens in 1980 to say, “We [are] onto something important.” Then Brinsmead, according to Zens, published a string of “brilliant” articles as a result in 1981—the same year Swanson says Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology.” Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.
Zens was a Reformed Baptist pastor at the time, so it is easy to see how the doctrine has spread in that camp. Present Truth also had a significant readership in Reformed Baptist circles. Zens’ leanings toward antinomian type doctrines had already caused trouble among Reformed Baptist which resulted in William J Chantry writing the book, God’s Righteous Kingdom. As far as the Johnny-come-lately names of NCT, one website is quoted as saying the following: “Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, some have sought to develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology distinct from the Second London Confession position. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, and Michael W. Adams.”
According to Richard C Barcellos in Defense Of The Decalogue, the doctrine was still in transition as late as 2001 when he wrote his book. Its proponents will have to let us know when they get it nailed down, or perhaps they can solicit some help from Robert Brinsmead. Robert–phone home.
paul
A Little Uptight and In the Fight
A visitor of PPT sent me a mp3 link the other day. It was a recording of The Heart of the Matter Programwith Pastor Ralph Ovadal—Ovadal pastors Pilgrims Covenant Church in Madison, Wisconsin.
Let me be clear: after researching these two churches; would I attend / join either? Answer: Yes, I would give up my NASB, Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Kutless, and Sunday jeans for SANITY. That’s what the present-day Evangelical landscape is right now—pure insanity. Most leaders whom I used to respect have certainly lost their minds. Extremism Light is looking pretty good to me right now.
That aside, the recording is a lengthy and decent evaluation of New Calvinism. In regard to their complaint along with Dr. Peter Masters that New Calvinism is worldly—that’s true by any sane person’s estimation. The pastors reiterate instances of absurd behavior by some of the more well known leaders in the movement. They also talk about well documented, over the top compromise by the who’s who of the Evangelical world, especially John MacArthur Jr. They are obviously not impressed with the stature of men—calling John Piper, “dangerous.”
Moreover, their doctrinal contentions hit the mark. They note the movement’s distortion of justification and sanctification, and Hamilton calls out the movement for being antinomian.
Here is the link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=1022101212210
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 5: Ellen White Was A New Calvinist Momma
“White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called ‘deep repentance,’ was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, ‘deep repentance.’”
As I study the Australian Forum (AF) archives to first establish that their theology is exactly the same as contemporary New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology (NCGSS), the task is becoming a real yawner. Monday, I will be writing a post on the AF version of “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” The whole indicative/imperative thing is a NCGSS staple. Further articles will be a mopping up of comparisons—almost a boring formality. I will also note a comparison of the AF’s version of Michael Horton’s Doctrine to Doxology.
As I noted previously, the AF three are Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead was trying to reform SDA, the AF endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings.
And why not? According to reviews written by the AF, White (hereafter “NCM”) had much in common with contemporary New Calvinism. First, NCM believed that sanctification was through justification alone. Or, ‘The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Paxton had this to say while reiterating NCM’s belifs:
“Justification is not a filling station that is passed but once, or a one-time event which is followed by sanctification—with perhaps an occasional looking back to justification. This theology [White’s] will not allow that. Justification and sanctification must be kept together. One blessing is the obverse side of the other. Justification feeds sanctification, and sanctification must continually return to justification” ( “The Theology of Ellen G. White: Sanctification” Present Truth Magazine [prim. ref.]).
Here is how Tullian Tchividjian, a New Calvinist, stated it:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth. As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day.”
It was the AF’s contention (it was mostly Paxton who wrote on behalf of the Forum) that because of people’s lack of understanding in regard to what NCM believed—there are many misconceptions accordingly. In their article on NCM’s view on sanctification, they make the case that what she wrote must be seen through her basic prism on the subject of sanctification (which is very similar to NCGSS):
”Contradictions? Paradoxes? That is for the reader to judge, but he who does not recognize (or refuses to recognize) these factors in Mrs. White is like the man who comes to the United States, takes a look around Los Angeles, and is satisfied that America boils down to smog and freeways” (prim. ref.).
NCM, like NCGSS advocates, was also a proponent of sanctification being limited to the same elements of justification—faith and repentance only: “There is no such thing as going beyond repentance, beyond the need of forgiveness and justification. To reach up in faith for acceptance with God is not one act in a lifetime. That no point in our experience can we dispense with the assistance of that which enables us to make the first start” (prim. ref.).
White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called “deep repentance,” was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, “deep repentance.” She believed that growth in sanctification depended on a contemplation of Christ and His works in comparison to our own inability to keep the law. As we (supposedly) gaze on Christ in the Scriptures, we become more, and more aware of our own sinfulness, and this (supposedly) fosters a deeper, and deeper dependence on Christ while nurturing humbleness. She believed that this continual partaking in deep repentance changes us from “glory to glory.” Sound familiar? In relationship to the law—her view was very positive. The law did two things: on the one hand, it is a glorious testimony as to what Christ obeyed for us—making us thankful. On the other hand, it shows us what we are unable to do—driving us back to the cross with pleas for mercy. I call this law positive and law negative. NCGSS advocates refer to it as “using the law lawfully.” The following are quotes from the same article that reference what I have proposed above:
“Here is the paradox of joy and sorrow. ‘The deepest joy of heart comes from the deepest humiliation.’(79) Sanctification therefore means progress in two directions. ‘The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature.’(80) ‘At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen.’(81) ‘The more our sense of need drives us to Him [Christ] and to the word of God, the more exalted views we shall have of His character, and the more fully we shall reflect His image.’82 “ (footnotes supplied by Forum: 79; 3T 459, 80; SC 64, 81; AA 561, 82; SC 65 [ key to abbreviations: http://goo.gl/y8Kfj ]).
“Brethren and sisters, it is by beholding that we become changed. By dwelling upon the love of God and our Saviour, by contemplating the perfection of the divine character and claiming the righteousness of Christ as ours by faith, we are to be transformed into the same image” (“Signs of the Times” pages 743-745).
“The justified believer, being no longer under the law’s condemnation, nor under it as a covenant of works, has a new attitude toward the law. He delights in it after the inward man, he wants to be perfect, but he mourns because he falls so far short of it.The law thus reminds him of how he must continue to hide his lack of perfection in Christ.Thus the believer always sees himself a sinner and counts himself vile….” (SL 81, DA 519, AA 561).
“The sanctification of the soul is accomplished through steadfastly beholding Him [Christ] by faith. . . .”(21) “Our faith increases by beholding Jesus. . . .”(22) “Our greatest need is faith. . . .”(23) It would not be difficult to make a good case for the life of faith being the dynamic of sanctification, in real Luther style” (21; 6BC 1117, 22; HP 127, 23; 7T 211).
“So will it be with all who behold Christ. The nearer we come to Jesus, and the more clearly we discern the purity of His character, the more clearly shall we see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the less shall we feel like exalting ourselves. There will be a continual, earnest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the heart before Him. At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen” (“Acts of the Apostles” 560, 561).
“Law and gospel, deep repentance and joyous faith, sinful and righteous, must always be kept together in Christian existence” (Paxton’s reiteration).
One may compare these quotes with the likes of John Piper:
“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. Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:9). So to know the God of the Old Testament is to know Christ. The more you see his glory and treasure his worth, the more you will be changed into his likeness (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)” (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully” Desiring God Ministries).
“Beholding is a way of becoming” (“The Pleasures Of God” p. 17).
“Along with deep repentance, Scripture calls us to a faith that rests and feeds upon the living Christ. He fills us with himself through the person of the Holy Spirit and we are transformed by faith” (Paul David Tripp, “How People Change” p. 28).
Like new Calvinist, White’s sanctification by justification also enabled her to speak in orthodox terms without contradicting her theology. For instance:
“Then again, one can make a good case out of union with Christ or the reception of the Holy Spirit as being the theme of Mrs. White’s concept of the Christian life. Here she is a quietist, telling us that the Christian life is a life of trust and restfulness. There she is a full-blooded activist, urging the reader to action, telling him that the Christian life is a fight, a battle, a march, that he must steel every nerve and fiber in what promises to be ‘slow, toilsome steps’ toward perfection.”
Right. Because when she speaks of “toilsome steps,” she is either speaking of toiling in the narrow endeavor of faith/deep repentance ONLY, or the results of that which leads to Christ’s toiling—NOT ours, or both. Paul Tripp does the same thing in “How People Change” on page 6:
“Rather, He calls us to a life of constant work, constant growth, and constant confession and repentance.”
Tripp, like NCM, is not talking about work by us in a sanctification that is many faceted, but work in “confession and repentance” only, and it is not certain whether the “work” is that of Christ that supposedly results from deep repentance, or the prior. Hence, NCGSS doctrine makes this kind of deceptive doublespeak possible, while appearing orthodox.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment