Why New Calvinism Must be Destroyed: Part 2; It’s Not Rocket Science
On the Southwood protestant website (I use that term because we are those who “protest” falsehood) we find a statement by Briarwood Presbyterian Church concerning Sonship Theology.
Stop the presses. That’s huge. It’s huge because Southwood is contemporary church history in the making. This is the first time in contemporary church history that New Calvinists have attempted a takeover while being specifically identified as a specific movement with a specific doctrine. Coral Ridge had no such convenience. Think about it, they had no idea where Tullian T. was coming from, and frankly, I wonder if they still don’t. No, no, Southwood is not just a sad story that might end badly—far from it. Southwood is progress. Truth brings life in every circumstance; specifically, new life, new ways, new learning, to mention a few.
Now to the Briarwood statement. It is indicative of why Sonship is spreading unabated. As Timothy F. Kauffman might well say: “This isn’t rocket science.” Consider one of the conclusions of the document:
While we have noted in the body of our report that some of the criticisms of the Sonship course have merit we do not find it on the whole to be inconsistent with the Biblical and Reformed teaching on sanctification. The course has two flaws that are particularly significant. These are over-endowment of the doctrine of adoption and lack of teaching on the ongoing use of the means of grace. Because of this latter concern Sonship should not be used as a comprehensive discipleship program. Additionally, there are several less significant flaws, but the course does not involve heresy. We commend Sonship for its proper desire to recapture the doctrines of grace in the teaching of sanctification.
This statement is the antithesis of the apostolic prescription for preserving and protecting truth. My dear friends, what kind of milk did Peter say that we grow by?
1 Peter 2:2
Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—
Don’t miss this. We grow BY the PURE spiritual milk. The Briarwood session openly admits that Sonship is not pure! It openly admits that important ingredients are missing and negative ingredients are added! That’s not pure milk. Am I here right now? There is really nothing I can add to this very simple point. It’s not rocket science. If it’s not pure milk get it out of there! And if a man has to be thrown out with it, amen!
Secondly, the Briarwood session openly admits that Sonship has a little bit of leaven. What saith the Scriptures?
1 Corinthians 5:6
Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?
1 Corinthians 5:7
Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
1 Corinthians 5:8
Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
Our way of worship is with the unleavened bread of sincerity and TRUTH. Does Sonship have some untruth? The Briarwood session states that it does! Can a little bit of untruth leaven the whole lump? My friends, you are not children, I will not even answer that question. This is not rocket science.
Yet a third in your face blatant contradiction to apostolic doctrine in the Briarwood statement is the following:
Finally, we would like to encourage a spirit of love throughout the PCA in future discussions of Sonship. In the spirit of “reformed but always reforming” frank discussion of all doctrinal issues is encouraged. All new teaching programs must be held up to the Biblical and Reformed standards, and if deficiencies are noted these must be clearly communicated. We believe that those bringing criticism must make certain that what they are criticizing is actually in the Sonship program, and then, must communicate clearly what their concerns are. We do not believe that anything in Sonship teaching should cause believers to break fellowship. We also encourage those at World Harvest Mission engaged in the process of revision to address the concerns detailed above while standing firm for the doctrines of grace.
So, don’t break fellowship with Sonshippers; how’s that workin’ for everybody? You see, the following apostolic concept is weaved throughout the New Testament: Truth unifies—error divides. That’s exactly why we break fellowship with those who promote error, for the “sincerity and truth” that unifies. In fact, biblical “heresy” is defined in terms of divisions; the two words are biblically synonymous:
I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. (Romans 16:17-18)
1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Notice that we are to be unified by the same judgment, ie, TRUTH, and the further we are from that, the less likely that there will be unity. So why would the Briarwood session say that some of the truth is ok? If Sonship cannot unify, why put up with it at all?
If you google, “heresies that cause divisions,” the information that can be gleaned on this point is massive, but I would like to enter some excerpts into evidence:
The point is that here in 2 Peter 2:1, the word airesis is consistent with the rest of Scripture. A heresy is not a false teaching itself, but the division that false teachings cause. The distinction is small, but there is a distinction. A heresy, therefore, is not a false teaching, but is a division, a sect, a faction, or a group within the Body of Christ, which separates from the rest. If this is true of heresy, then what about heretics?
This word comes from the Greek airetikos, which is used only one time in the entire New Testament, in Titus 3:10. And similarly to what we have seen about heresy, the problem is not the bad theology the person is teaching (though that is a problem), but rather the divisive and factious attitude of the person that Paul is most concerned about.
Some say that in Titus 3:10 ‘a factious [sectarian] man’ should be translated ‘a man who teaches heresy’ and that this expression does not refer to a divisive person. But in Greek this expression denotes a person who holds an opinion or a different doctrine that tends toward division. Thus, the English versions translate this as (1) a factious man—American Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Marshall’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (2) a man who is factious—Revised Standard Version, Amplified Bible; (3) a heretical sectarian and cause of divisions—Amplified Bible; (4) a heretical person causing divisions—Wuest; (5) a sectarian—W. J. Conybeare; (6) a man who causes divisions—R. F. Weymouth; (7) a factious person—James Moffatt; (8) a sectarian man—Concordant Literal New Testament, Berry’s Interlinear Greek-English New Testament; (9) a factious person—Berkeley Version; (10) a heretical man, i.e., one given to ‘lift up’ opinions, sound or unsound, and an unstable, unsettled individual who wishes to form sects—Young’s Translation; (11) causing division by a party spirit, factious—Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words; (12) a divisive person—New International Version. Most of the above translations are authorities.” (W. Lee, The Ministry of the New Testament and the Teaching and Fellowship of the Apostles, Chapter 2, Section 6, LSM)
Jude 3,4,16,19
3 Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our COMMON salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
4 For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
16 These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their {own} lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of {gaining an} advantage.
19 These are the ones who cause divisions [emphasis mine], worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit.
Any of this ring a bell? Or maybe you’re hearing a NASA countdown. I am in the process of learning more about what could have been done differently. If half of the Southwood session had a problem with Larroux, they might have been able to invoke the biblical authority to warn Larroux twice and then reject him without the other elders. Don’t know, more education needed—then I want to know what should have been done. An actual protocol could be developed for future Southwoods. I also find the information concerning the attempt to bring in a mediator very interesting. Especially if it was Peacekeepers International.
paul
Why New Calvinism Must be Destroyed: Part 1; The Larroux Mega-Lie
“The carnage left behind by this doctrine has been bulldozed into landfills long enough.”
“The Southwood parishioners only plead to be taught how to do that, but instead are scolded for clinging to the hope that we are not helpless in the sanctification process—that we can seize upon the promises of God by following him.”
A series by Paul and Susan Dohse
This will begin a new series on Southwood Presbyterian Church. I have perused the website that parishioners have constructed and received some messages as well. The picture is so graphic that I am compelled to go ahead and get this series started. It is a picture of why New Calvinism must be destroyed. I use that word, “destroyed” because that is the word that the apostle Paul used:
2 Corinthians 10:5
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
More information is coming out and there is much to write about, and Lord willing, I will because this situation is New Calvinism in action. The carnage left behind by this doctrine has been bulldozed into landfills long enough. The series will examine the fact that Larroux, like most New Calvinist pastors, is a classic antinomian. It will also discuss why the movement is spreading unabated, and what must be done to stop it. Happenings at Southwood are the why. Susan and I will also examine what the Presbytery could have done to stop the situation and enquire as to why they didn’t.
One thing becomes evident from the letters posted on Southwood info .com and examination of the sermon archives; like all New Calvinist pastors, Larroux incessantly presents the motif that all of human history continues to be awash in mankind’s attempts to please God by working hard. So called, “legalism,” a word that does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures. First, the Pharisees of the New Testament were antinomians; Christ said Himself that they were “lawless” on the inside and the outside, not just the outside. And legalism was hardly the problem in the Old Testament, and Satan certainly didn’t come to Eve as a legalist. Furthermore, the problem at Corinth was hardly “legalism” as well.
Moreover, the Whitney Houston funeral is indicative of the real problem: freebie grace on steroids. For more than a year, Larroux has insulted the intelligence of Southwood parishioners by proclaiming the mega-lie that the whole world lies in the lap of legalism and that he is the great one that has come to set them free. The truth of the matter is that the whole world already lies in the lap of what he teaches at Southwood weekly. The cries heard in the Southwood letters only plead for one of the apostle Paul’s definitions of sanctification:
1 Thessalonians 4:4
that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,
The Southwood parishioners only plead to be taught how to do that, but instead are scolded for clinging to the hope that we are not helpless in the sanctification process—that we can seize upon the promises of God by following him. But no, instead, they hear that Christian walk Christianity denies the cross. In essence, Larroux wants Southwood to become postmodern and stop believing that words mean things.
And no doubt, one of the goals of this series is to find out who the Presbyterian cowards are who have turned their back on these dear people. These people don’t even know me, but yet, I receive messages that are concerned for my own spiritual wellbeing in the midst of discernment ministry. These godly, loving people deserve better. When the information has been compiled, maybe a “PPT’s Top Ten Presbyterian Cowards” is in order.
paul
New Calvinism and Our Children
PPT is just really swamped right now. I’m talking about information overload because the New Calvinists are not even being ambiguous anymore. No, I haven’t had time to read everything on the Southwood site, but a member there emailed me to ask the following (paraphrase): “Don’t know how you do it, but anyway, if you haven’t had any time to visit the site, you may want to at least focus on the following letter….”
So I did, which invoked the title of this post. I will address the letter as we go:
To the Ruling Elders of Southwood:
On September 4, 2011, our daughter and her family from Atlanta were here and we attended the Sunday worship at Southwood. After the service, our 13 year old granddaughter, who is well grounded in scripture, stated that she was very confused by the message. She had come away hearing that every good thing she does is wrong. Why would she believe that? We have gone back and listened again to that message, entitled “Duh,” and here is what we found.
First, I commend the couple who wrote this letter. Thank God for them. Let me just frame this according to what is going on in my neck of the woods. Susan and I live in GARB territory near Cedarville Christian College. Yesterday, they hosted a conference featuring the heretical New Calvinist Mark Devers and his 9Marks “ministry.” Packed house. I couldn’t even get in to report on the conference, and I didn’t wait till the last minute either. I will be going to a GARB conference in a couple of weeks that I got a ticket for , and many of the speakers are staff members at Skyview Ranch, a GARB youth camp. Long story short, it’s obvious that the Skyview staff is totally in the tank for New Calvinism. So, multiply the experience of the aforementioned thirteen year old times hundreds during the summer, and of course, everybody is asleep at the switch plus clueless. New Calvinism is either indoctrinating or confusing a whole generation of Christian youth.
They letter continues….
The message is from Galatians 3:1-6. Paul is chastening the church for falling prey to the persuasion of the Judaizers, exhorting them again that God’s love for them was not by any of their own works but through the miraculous work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Jean seems to take the written word beyond its intent. He subtly changes ‘God’s love’ to ‘God’s favor.’ He changes legalism to performance. He takes Jewish law and extends it to almost any action one does. Here are some paraphrased quotes from the sermon. “To keep God’s favor, the Galatians were believing they needed Christ and a dash of obedience which looks like those things called Christian disciplines. Christian walk Christianity is from the Devil. Faithfulness is feeling condemned for work you haven’t finished (as contrasted with faith: resting completely in Christ). Faith is a litmus test for teachers and leaders; the difference between faith in Christ alone and faithfulness is like the difference between truth and falsehood, between Heaven and Hell. Faith alone is all we will teach.” (Here Jean says this is what Paul is teaching but he gives no supporting scriptures to support his interpretation.) “Discern as false any book, sermon, or Bible study where you hear a dash of self justifying obedience. Self justifying obedience is from Satan.”
Southwood Presbyterian Church has been putting up with this for more than a year now. It’s plainly sanctification by faith alone and fuses justification and sanctification together. Therefore, anything you do in sanctification effects justification. Without the New Calvinist formula for tiptoeing through sanctification in a way that won’t affect our justification, we are putting “our souls in peril” according to New Calvinists like John Piper. In essence, doing nothing to keep our salvation, which by the way, is still works salvation
Jean’s statements, combined with the tone and inflections in his delivery, imply that he is scornful of Christian disciplines, preachers, Christian writers, the Christian walk, obedience, faithfulness, good works, and an individual’s efforts. This message can lead to the conclusion that everything we do is evil and, by extension, that God and the Holy Spirit can do nothing through us. The message lacks balance and leaves sanctification out of the equation. A new believer under this teaching would be moribund after accepting Christ, hidebound in fear that he can do nothing right. While it is true none of us have all pure motives, it is also true that God commands us to go forward and that the Holy Spirit will be with us. God says we are His instruments for spreading the Truth. We cannot do this if we are strapped by guilt; we can do this if we seek partnership with the Holy Spirit.
I am going to focus on the key observations of this paragraph:
- “The message lacks balance and leaves sanctification out of the equation [yes, said another way: it fuses the two together and for all practical purposes eliminates sanctification].”
- “A new believer under this teaching would be moribund after accepting Christ, hidebound in fear that he can do nothing right [exactly, because if you do something wrong, it could cost you your salvation! Is this the kind of stuff we want taught to our children?!].”
From here Jean goes back to Paul saying “…since you were 100% depraved when you were brought into the Kingdom by the Holy spirit and by no works of your own, why are you trying to be perfected by your own human efforts? You are being deceived by the Devil.” I believe Jean is paralleling Paul in this. Jean then goes on to “We are like alcoholics ; we use Bible study, prayers, small groups, etc. as a crutch and the church rewards our ‘addiction’ with its approval. How would you know if you were addicted? Stop everything. If you feel anxiety, then you are afraid of leaving your ‘fix.’” So we ask: what does God have us do? Jean’s answer is “rest totally in Jesus.” So in turn we ask, what does Scripture say about resting totally in Jesus? But we hear no clear answer from the pulpit.
- “From here Jean goes back to Paul saying “…since you were 100% depraved ….” [nothing new here, this is the total depravity of the saints taught by New Calvinists].
- “….when you were brought into the Kingdom by the Holy spirit and by no works of your own, why are you trying to be perfected by your own human efforts? You are being deceived by the Devil”
I’m not going to bracket this point because it is an important one. New Calvinists often do this, they cite justification verses to make points concerning sanctification, making them the same. One of the verses they use most to do that is this one in particular, Galatians 3:2,3:
Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
This verse concerns justification (the preceding verses make that absolutely clear), and “being perfected” really doesn’t properly represent Paul’s idea. That’s why Young’s Literal Translation states it this way:
so thoughtless are ye! having begun in the Spirit, now in the flesh do ye end?
This actually matches Romans 8:30 which shows that justification guarantees glorification. Paul is asking the Galatians a rhetorical question: “Are you going to be glorified (in the end) by the flesh?”
I couldn’t conclude this post with a better statement than concluded the letter to Southwood’s session. Please read it carefully:
We believe It is unfair to critique one sermon and disparage it as unbalanced. However, this same, or very similar, message has been preached throughout 2011. Please do not tell us weekly how ‘messy’ we are. We need occasional reminding but guide us in our sanctification and in our understanding of the whole breadth of the Word of God. Balance from the whole word of God is needed! And consider the youth, like our granddaughter. They have urgent needs to move on to solid food too, as they come into adulthood.
Indeed, take the inventory here. What New Calvinists are doing to adult Christians is bad enough, but what about our children?
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 27; A “Scandalous” Question for Southwood Members
I’m also going to repost this under “Why I Talk to New Covenant Theologians.” In part 26, I raised the whole “scandalous gospel” motif propagated by New Calvinists and their doctrine’s evil twin, New Covenant Theology. Both came from the womb of Progressive Adventism (which by the way is a gut-check for the Presbyter: does that matter or not?). Part 26 was a question for the Session, now I have a question for the congregation which I will get to shortly.
The whole motif is designed to present the idea that there is a reason why so many evangelicals raise a stink about their doctrine: because it was also scandalous to the legal buffoons who contended against Christ and the apostles. This is what’s behind JL3’s present series, “Scandalous Obedience.” He wants to supposedly illustrate that he believes in obedience (wink, wink) while providing an answer for why Southwood is falling apart at the seams. In essence, because what he is teaching was also “scandalous” in the first century.
In regard to part 26, I received this email from a person who Ernest Reisinger (a former Presby turned SB. Van Til spoke at his ordination) referred to as one of the “forefathers of New Covenant Theology”:
Paul,
I just read your comments about whether the gospel is scandalous or not. You asked where the gospel is described as scandalous? Are you unaware that the word translated “stumbling block” in first Corinthians one is a word from which we get our word “scandal?” The gospel is to the Jews a scandal and to the Greeks foolishness. Since I am fairly confident you would not have published my comments and I am sure you would never admit you were wrong, I decided to just send this to you by email.
Rule of thumb. Study first, then speak or write.
Ok, so let’s go to our trusty Greek reference manual and see what the word for “stumbling block” is in 1Corinthians 1:23. Yes, the word is “skandalon” (btw, “E-Sword” is a free download). Wow. Looks like one of the forefathers of NCT has put me in my place! That’s why I always dialogue with these guys—I have learned half of what I know from them.
But why does virtually every English translation we have translate this, “stumbling block.” BTW, having all of the English translations to refer to tells you what all of the brain trust of translators thought the best English word is for that passage. If every English translation translates a word the same way—that’s a very strong indication that it’s the best word. That’s the approach “Randy from Tulsa” took in commenting on the other post. And Bible Gateway.com is free online as well. Look, today’s parishioner has NO excuse for not being a good Berean.
So where did I go wrong? I went to my copy of The Complete Word Study Dictionary by Spiros Zodhiates. This is actually a very thick book that gives us all of the background and usages for a Greek or Hebrew word. But can I make this real easy? If you go to Google Translate and translate σκανδαλον (skandalon) into English, you get: “stumbling.” See screen shot below:
If you translate the word “scandal” (σκάνδαλο) from Greek to English, you get “scandal.” In other words, the words look the same, but they are totally different words with totally different meanings. See screen shot below:
Where translators get the “block” part of this is a little complicated, but explained well by Zodhiates. The literal idea is being trapped (ensnared) into going down a wrong path. A Greek synonym is an opportunity for stumbling and the antithesis is a pattern to follow.
Now, my question for the Southwood gang: Has JL3 ever used that argument from 1Corinthians 1:23? You guys could really save me some time on your website. But if he hasn’t, then again, what does he base this motif on? He either used errant information or none at all! Oh, and btw, what I usually learn from the NC/NCT crowd is by antithesis. And one of the biggest lessons learned here is that evil and Christian academia are not mutually exclusive. I have a hunch that Zodhiates and others labor so we will not be in bondage to their “deep knowledge.” Not by choice anyway.
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 26; Some Questions for the Southwood “Ruling Elders”
Dear Southwood ruling elders,
In your letter to the congregation (which you posted on the World Wide Web), you say that Larroux’s theology has been fully vetted by the Presbytery and found to be in accord with the Westminster Confession, and the larger and shorter Catechisms.
But throughout the time that he has been there, Larroux has referred to his own beliefs as “scandalous.” The scandalous this, the scandalous that, the scandalous other, etc. Where has it ever been said that the Westminster Confession of Faith is “scandalous”? In fact, where in the Bible does it say that the gospel is scandalous? How can “good news” also be scandalous?
Do any of the four Presbyteries that vetted him think the WCF is scandalous? Did Larroux inform the congregation going in that he considered his beliefs to be scandalous? And if he didn’t, should he have done so?
Words mean things. Synonyms for “scandalous” are: shocking; outrageous; immoral; shameful; indecent; reprehensible; appalling. I’m thinking that these things fall under the realm of full discloser. Is it just me?
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments