Brinsmead’s Second “Awakening” Framework is the Foundation of New Calvinism
I recently read an article written by Martin L. Carey entitled, “Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening.” Carey was the son of Iris Carey, a staunch follower of Brinsmead during the Awakening movement of which he was the central figure.
According to Carey, this was no small movement within Adventist circles:
“For three decades, the ‘Brinsmead Agitation’ challenged Adventist leadership on several continents. During the years I was growing up, the conflict over his teachings became so intense that showing any agreement with Brinsmead’s heresy could get one expelled—and this I saw firsthand. Many pastors lost their jobs or left the ministry voluntarily because they espoused Brinsmead’s theology. For his followers, even mentioning the name of Brinsmead could put one’s membership at risk. Moreover, much Adventist literature published in the 1970’s was aimed at correcting Brinsmead’s influence.”
Carey does a good job of explaining Adventist doctrine and how Brinsmead interacted with it, but let me give you the short version: In justification, all of a saint’s past sins are forgiven, but then Christians have to work for moral perfection to be completely justified at the judgment. The first theological framework that laid the foundation for Brinsmead’s Awakening movement was borrowed from protestant beliefs; specifically, that we stand in the judgment clothed in Christ’s righteousness, not our own. This is what makes us fit for the judgment. Carey further explains:
“This was the original ‘Awakening Message.’ For many Adventists who had lived in dread of God’s judgment, this was good news. As Brinsmead later described,
‘…it was the most sweet and joyful news that many had ever heard. Neither time nor circumstances…can efface the memory of souls weeping for joy at the simple revelation that Christ is our righteousness in judgment’(Review of Awakening, Pt. 1).
Brinsmead decided to leave Avondale in 1958 to speak independently and to publish. His following soon became a significant movement in Australia. By 1960, they called themselves the ‘Sanctuary Awakening Fellowship.’ Even though the Australian Adventist leadership strenuously opposed the Awakening, the movement spread. Inevitably, on December 19, 1960, the Awakening message came to America, and the General Conference had no idea what was about to hit them.”
This is when Carey’s mother began to follow Brinsmead:
“In 1961, a young mother of three named Iris Carey was among those who heard and ‘wept for joy.’ She lived a few blocks from the Review and Herald building in Tacoma Park, and she began excitedly and widely circulating Brinsmead sermon tapes. Some caught that excitement, others strongly resisted. (Indifference was not a typical Adventist reaction to Brinsmead.) Meanwhile, for the three of us who were kids of Iris Carey, tension with our church and the world was a constant reality. In spite of its polarizing message and charismatic leader, the Awakening movement never tried to be a separate denomination. Indeed, Brinsmead’s purpose was not to destroy Adventism but to restore it to its original judgment day urgency [due to the fact that many knew in their heart that they could not obtain perfection on their own and preferred not to discuss it while playing along with a token recognition of the doctrine]. In the 1960’s, most Awakeners, as we called ourselves, remained members of Adventist churches—that is, as long as they would have us…. Iris was expelled from several churches for giving out Brinsmead literature and for holding unauthorized Bible studies. For her, this persecution confirmed the prophetic status of the Awakening message, and throughout the movement it unified Awakeners into a distinct Adventist subculture.”
Then Carey explains the following:
“The resulting abundance of literature and tapes galvanized our movement’s mission and kept it moving. Additionally, Bob Brinsmead was constantly adjusting his message. Whenever Awakeners would meet they would ask one another, ‘Have you heard the latest?’ We always looked for the next church-shaking new emphasis. Brinsmead had a genius for building elaborate theological structures, getting everyone excited, then tearing them down for a ‘new framework.’ He often said, ‘Like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I keep moving my tent in faith.’ There was no resting for the devoted Awakener following Brinsmead’s mercurial leading.”
The second theological framework Brinsmead developed before he abandoned the Awakening movement lives on today in the form of New Calvinism. The doctrine was developed when Brinsmead began researching the Reformers:
“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 [supposedly] 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. The apostle said,
‘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.”
Brinsmead’s theological frame eliminated the extra “step” of sanctification from the gospel. Not only that, the gospel was completely objective and an “outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.” So, the believer does not (supposedly) experience a righteousness that he possesses through the new birth, in Brinsmead’s second frame, that’s “subjective”:
“True sanctification looks away from self and flows from the finished, objective work of Christ…. For many Christians, the glory of the crucified Christ is not their focus; instead they seek internal experiences that eclipse the cross. The Awakening rightly opposed the subjective, human-centered emphasis found among some groups within Christianity. Wrongly, they reacted with a cerebral, spiritless gospel. Brinsmead strongly opposed the charismatic movement’s emphasis on experiences as a return to the theology of Rome. However, going to another extreme, Present Truth magazine decried ‘the false gospel of the new birth,’ and offered a new birth that was merely a corporate, objective blessing, not an individual experience.”
Though mainline Adventist were at the other extreme, propagating a justification that you had to keep on your own, they rightly complained that Brinsmead’s new frame was a “justification-centered gospel” that “encouraged spiritual laziness.” During that time, the project that was solidifying this doctrine into a “consistent” theological framework was the Australian Forum. Their doctrinal publication was Plain Truth magazine mentioned by Carey. The primary Australian three were Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy. The writings of Graeme Goldsworthy are a mainstay of contemporary New Calvinism, especially the “Goldsworthy Trilogy.” This “justification-centered gospel” can be seen among many New Calvinists like CJ Mahaney who continually claim that the gospel can be defined by five words: “Christ died for our sins.” Like the Australian Forum, New Calvinists believe that all of life flows from objective justification and deny the new birth as a subjective truth that is not relevant to the more important matter of the gospel. This regardless of the fact that Christ said, “You must be born again.” Hence, Sonship Theology, which is based on the centrality of the objective gospel and helped give birth to New Calvinism, propagates a total depravity of the saints. Well known New Calvinists David Powlison and Tim Keller were forefathers of that movement.
That’s pretty much the smoking gun: the hallmark of Brinsmead’s centrality of the objective gospel necessitates the denial of the new birth, and central figures of the New Calvinist movement clearly deny the new birth accordingly; for example, Graeme Goldsworthy and Michael Horton. Goldsworthy said this in an article he wrote in Plain Truth Magazine: “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as nineteenth-century liberalism” (Obituary for the Old Testament Vol. 41-Article 2). Goldsworthy footnoted this statement by referencing an article by Paxton entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth” (Present Truth Vol. 7 Article 3 June 1978 ps. 17-22). In that article, Paxton made the following statement: “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.”
Compare that with what Michael Horton wrote in Receiving Christ (from his out of print book In the Face of God): “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own ‘Spirit-filled” life?’”
New Calvinists who do not plainly deny the new birth do so practically by advocating the total depravity of the saints and the idea that Christians are spiritually dead. Paul David Tripp states plainly that Christians are still spiritually dead on pages 64 and 65 of the 2006 printing of “How People Change.” Concerning a video that is a satire on total depravity entitled “John Piper is Bad,” Piper concurred in an interview that the point of the video was theologically true, Christians are still “bad” in regard to our behavior.
paul
2Corinthians 3:18: New Calvinist “Word Pictures,” and Idol Worship
“If MacArthur hasn’t bought into contemplative spirituality, where is the clarification while his verbiage mimics that of antinomians such as John Piper?”
“Please do not bore me with what you think he meant—he’s unclear and that’s on him. Furthermore, a lack of clarity regarding this issue is reckless because of what is widely taught in our day, and coupled with whom and what Phil Johnson endorses.”
New Calvinism (NC) makes much of two primary Scriptures: Galatians 2:20 (the targeted verse for distortion among antinomians throughout the New Testament age) and 2Corinthians 3:18. It reads as follows:
“And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”
I have chosen the NIV translation because it best fits the NC take on this passage. Supposedly, by contemplating the Lord’s glory in Scripture we are changed (the implication is by contemplation alone) from one degree of glory to the next, or “ever-increasing glory.” The fact that this is the primary message that proponents want parishioners to get can be seen in John Piper’s mantra, “Beholding as a way of becoming.” If there is another way equally as important in the process of change—they don’t talk about it much—if at all. To be certain, conversation about doing (biblical doing) something different as change, which one would assume is change, is avoided like the Bubonic Plague. In his endorsement of Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland, Phil Johnson, a close ministry associate of MacArthur, states the following:
“We become like whatever we worship (Psalm 135:15-18). So the key to sanctification and spiritual maturity is a simple principle: As we set our affections on Christ and keep Him at the center of all our thoughts, activities, desires, and ambitions, we are transformed into His likeness (2 Corinthians 3:18).”
Notice that Phil Johnson quotes Psalm 135: 15-18 to make his point:
“The idols of the nations are silver and gold, made by the hands of men. They have mouths, but cannot speak, eyes, but they cannot see; they have ears, but cannot hear, nor is there breath in their mouths. Those who make them will be like them and so will all who trust in them.”
So, in the same way that pagans become like the images they worship, we can supposedly become like Jesus by worshiping “Him,” and keeping “Him” at the center of our lives. But what does that mean? The point of this Psalm is that men trust images that can’t instruct or impart true wisdom (they can’t speak, hear, or see). Therefore, the images represent anything the worshippers want them to represent, and then they become whatever that is. We are not to worship any image in heaven or earth because images can’t impart truth to be obeyed (Exodus 20:4-6), but using Scripture to ascertain the personhood of Christ (ie., the mantra of our day: “Christ is not a quiz—He’s a person”) rather than what He instructs is flirting with making images of Christ that are the result of our own imaginations. Johnson asserts that this nebulous concept is the “key” to spiritual maturity. I strongly disagree. Please do not bore me with what you think he meant—he’s unclear and that’s on him. Furthermore, a lack of clarity regarding this issue is reckless because of what is widely taught in our day, and coupled with whom and what Phil Johnson endorses.
In addition, is this “simple principle” more simple than learning and applying? Johnson’s statement is indicative of the new four-letter word of our age: O-B-E-Y. Note the degree to which the word and the idea is spoken of in the New Testament, and then compare that to what the spiritual rock stars of our time emphasize—hardly anything is more conspicuous.
How subtle this is; in its application to teaching, can be seen in John MacArthur’s recently published, “Slave.” The book is an excellent exposition of the fact that we are slaves to Christ, and the historical documentation/insight is most likely unmatched by anything written in recent history, but the book is all but purely descriptive and not prescriptive for our walk with Christ. In other words, it displays an awesome “picture” of what our slavery to Christ “looks like,” but very little information regarding how that fact can be specifically applied to our lives. This is a marked departure from how MacArthur taught in the past.
It is also a prism that saturates the writings of John Piper as well. His writings are predominantly descriptive and contain little, if any instruction. Piper advocated the idea that the Gospels should be read with the sole intent of looking for “pictures of Jesus” at the 2010 T4G. Funny, Christ’s conclusion to the Sermon on the Mount was: “He who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like….” Of course, Paul David Tripp clears up the confusion caused by Jesus’ plain language by clarifying with the term, “word pictures.” Apparently, Jesus doesn’t really want us to study and apply, but rather contemplate what obedience “looks like” so our obedience will “look like” MacArthur’s description in Slave: always without hesitation and full of joy. Like his close friend John Piper, MacArthur now makes these statements without any specific qualification. In Piper’s case, he doesn’t qualify such statements because he believes joy gives obedience its moral value—one can only assume that MacArthur doesn’t qualify such statements for the same reason. Birds of the feather flock together.
Back to 2Corithians 3:18. Asserting that Paul was teaching a contemplation on the glory of Christ only as the paramount way in which we change is an assumption at best. It says both are going on at the same time, but there is no because of or a result of conjunction that also excludes anything else. Besides, this passage is best interpreted by James 1:25 which contains the same types as 2Corinthians 3:18 in context; such as, “liberty” and “mirrors[s]” (see verse 17). We are changed into the likeness of Christ by being “doers” of the word, and not hearers only. Of course, this application is only possible through our vital union with Christ—I think that is Paul’s main point in 2Corinthians, NOT a pie in the sky obedience that flows automatically from contemplative spirituality.
If MacArthur hasn’t bought into contemplative spirituality, where is his clarification while his verbiage mimics that of antinomians such as John Piper? And, the key to spiritual growth is understanding the supposed dynamics of how worshipping an image makes us like that image? Has the key to spiritual growth become worshipping the right “picture”? Again, if biblical instruction and life application (obedience) is equally important, or just as “key” as setting our affections on “Him” and also seeing “pictures” of His “personhood,” it’s conspicuously missing.
But this is for certain: we become what is emphasized, and the emphasis of our day looks more and more like the servant who hid his talents in the ground; because supposedly, we can’t add to the faith Christ has given. Since it apparently doesn’t turn out well for that servant, perhaps we could get some clarification.
paul
Big Mac Contradictions: From “Saved Without A Doubt” to “Uneclipsing The Son”
“Like the Emergent Church postmodernism that Dr. MacArthur rebukes in ‘The Truth War’ with all fervor, he has become comfortable with contradictions. Like the postmoderns he ridicules, the Bible is not a superintended document concerning what Jesus SAYS, it is a story / narrative about what Jesus looks like. These are indeed confusing days for the American church, and she has lost one that was once a voice of clarification amidst the crosstalk.”
As one who has had profound respect for John MacArthur over the years, his courtship with New Calvinism and their Gospel Sanctification doctrine has been a major disappointment for me. That aside, by far, the most powerful book Mac has ever written is Saved Without A Doubt. It’s probably why the book has been recently reprinted.
But one can only conclude that there is a really big contradiction by Mac regarding what he wrote in SWD and what he penned in the forward to the atrocious Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland ; specifically, what gives you assurance of salvation doesn’t also sanctify you.
I have always said that the first chapter of 2Peter presents huge problems for the New Calvinist movement. First, Peter makes it clear that he wrote the epistle during a time when he knew his departure into glory was at hand (verses 12-15). This was the message that Peter thought to be the most important truth for the saints to remember after his departure so that they could “be able at any time to recall these things.” What things? Peter calls those things “qualities” (verse 12) that are to be ADDED to our FAITH (because obviously, faith is the foundation that we build on in contrast to the New Calvinist proposition to continually rebuild the foundation). If Michael Horton’s “revisiting the gospel afresh” is paramount to sanctification, it is unthinkable that this would not be what Peter would want them to be in constant remembrance of.
Secondly, Peter wrote that he and others saw the very majesty of Christ firsthand, but then refers to the Scriptures as a better testimony that was to be used for direction (a light in a dark place [verse 19] or as Psalm 119;105 says, “a light to my path”).
This same chapter also has assurance as a major theme, so I thought it would be very interesting to go back and revisit what MacArthur wrote about the first chapter of 2Peter in SWD. Throughout chapter 7 where he expounds on 2Peter and its relationship to assurance, the contradictions to what he wrote in UTS are numerous, but I will highlight the most glaring contradictions.
1. In his introduction to chapter 7, Mac writes that he took a sabbatical in 1980 (when New Calvinism was still in its infancy and being nurtured by Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens) to reevaluate his future at Grace Community Church where he had ministered for eleven years. Mac states on page 127: “I remember feeling I had taught my congregation everything I knew. I feared boring them by going over the same old things.” Here, Mac is clearly talking about a variety of biblical truth and disciplines. Surely, he wasn’t referring to deeper knowledge of Christ (and his personhood) as “the same old things” (and additionally, “things” in the plural). He then states that God called him to a ministry of remembrance that reinvigorated him: “What happened? The Lord taught me the importance of being used to remind believers of truth they already know. I sensed a new commitment and perspective in ministry based on my reading of 2Peter 1.” He then states: “I’ve been at my church for more than forty years now. If I have my way, I’ll be around a lot longer than that, reinforcing the truth just as Peter did.”
But in UTS he writes: “After more than four decades of pastoral ministry, I am still constantly amazed at the power of Christ-centered preaching”[as opposed to “truth”]. And, “The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock.” So much for a ministry of “remembrance.” If the remembering is anything other than Christ—it hinders sanctification, and one would have to assume assurance as well.
2. On page 128 of SWD, MacArthur was in good company with those who propose that the Lord’s table is what Christ recommended for remembering Him and his sacrifice for us. In his contention against a form of New Calvinism called Sonship Theology, Jay Adams wrote the following: “Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).” Likewise, MacArthur recognizes this same reality on page 128: “Remembrance is a vital aspect of Christian ministry. Celebrating Communion at the Lord’s Table is a prime example—its point is that we might forever remember Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on our behalf. It challenges us to overcome the indifference bred by familiarity.” And, “God has endowed the brain with the capacity to reinforce spiritual truth. When you continually feed on the Word of God [verses Christ only?], you will respond in a spiritual manner almost voluntarily.”
In SWD, Mac clearly has a variety of biblical truth in mind, but in UTS, Mac says, “Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display [“full display” ?] in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.”
3. By far, the most glaring contradiction is the most important, and is paramount to sanctification that turns out well. In the forward to UTS, Mac makes it clear that spiritual growth comes by gazing on the “face” of Jesus (but what exactly does that mean?! And how do you do that “one verse at a time” which is the motto of his ministry?). But he would then have to say that sanctification that is going well isn’t experienced by assurance because of what he writes in SWD. On page 123 of the new addition and 106 of the first addition, he writes the following: “Perhaps the most obvious reason for lacking assurance is disobedience, because assurance is the reward for obedience.” Not only that, but Mac makes it clear that it is us exerting and striving in the process: “Peter said to expend maximum effort to equip or supply ourselves (GK., epichoregein) with a series of virtues” (p.132 new / p.114 first edition).
However, in UTS, he says the following: “This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds.” That concept of contemplative spirituality is nowhere to be found in SWD, and is a direct contradiction to “….expend maximum effort to equip or supply OURSELVES with a series of virtues” (emphasis mine).
4. Furthermore, in SWD, Mac clearly contradicts the New Calvinist concept of the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event. When he is talking about the necessity of exerting our own energy or efforts in obedience for assurance, and presumably spiritual growth as well, he rejects the notion that Peter’s imperatives in 2Peter 1 flow from the indicates in some kind of effortless experience: “Now that may come as a surprise after hearing in verses 3-4 about all the good things God has already done for us. You might expect the next statement to be, ‘So let go and let God. Relax and wait for Him to do it all.’ Hardly. Peter said to EXPEND MAXIMUM EFFORT to equip or supply OURSELVES….”(emphasis mine). So, Dr. MacArthur, which is it? NOT by our own efforts, or expending maximum effort to supply ourselves? Regardless, Mac is clearly rejecting a cause and effect relationship between contemplating what God has done in verses 3,4 and what Peter commands in the verses following.
5. Mac further contradicts the theme of Holland’s book (which he enthusiastically endorses) by emphasizing in SWD that salvation is a foundation that we build on. UTS rejects that idea and replaces it with the idea that the gospel is not merely the “ABC’s of Christianity, but the A-Z” as many New Calvinists like to state it. Holland states this on almost every page of UTS, but particularly on page 15. On that page, he also states that being familiar with the gospel is what hinders spiritual growth, and the key is to look deeper into the gospel for the purpose of feeling the same way we did when we were first saved (“Do these words move you as they once did?”). Again, in SWD, Mac agrees with Adams in regard to a primary remedy for that—the Lord’s Table, but also writes: “In your faith, your initial believing in Christ, you need to come lavishly, zealously, diligently alongside what Christ has done and do everything you [amazingly, the emphasis here on “you” is MacArthur’s] can possibly do. That’s what will continue to yield the fruit of assurance in your life.” A close friend of MacArthur’s, RC Sproul, who also for some reason enthusiastically endorses New Calvinism, would agree:
““Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, ‘God helps those who help themselves,’ had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (Pleasing God p. 227).
6. As opposed to gazing on the glory of Christ (or his “face” which obviously is not seen in Scripture, nor John Piper’s “pictures of Jesus” that we are supposed to look for) as the primary gateway to spiritual growth as propagated by Mac in UTC, he rather promotes the primary idea in SWD that the gateway of assurance (and one assumes accompanying growth) is obedience and right choices (p.129 first / p.150 new). Again, on those pages, he reiterates that vigorously appropriating what God has supplied is the “balancing” approach, not some kind of effort that flows from the work of God that is not our “own efforts.” In UTS, MacArthur falls into the New Calvinist either/or hermeneutic; it’s either all of us, or all of the Spirit. Jay Adams notes well that such a hermeneutic strips us of a way to genuinely love the Lord according to a biblical prescription.
Additionally, in stark contrast, he describes love and praise of God, joy, contentment, service, gratitude, and fearlessness as flowing from assurance which he says first flows from obedience! (129,130 / 150-152). This completely blows-up the New Calvinist paradigm propagated by Michael Horton: 1. Contemplation on the gospel 2.Gratitude 3. Doxology 4. obedience (#4 flowing from something that is “not in our own efforts” which is what exactly?). Mac makes this absolutely clear on page 147 of the new addition, saying that God knows who he has elected; and, “God is not the issue here; you are.” On page 146 of the new addition and replicated in the first, Mac writes: “Be warned: A failure to diligently pursue spiritual virtue will produce spiritual amnesia. It will dim your vision of your spiritual condition. You may associate some external activity or experience with the moment of you salvation, but you will not feel assured.” This is obviously a gargantuan contrast to what Mac is advocating in UTS.
Like the Emergent Church postmodernism that Dr. MacArthur rebukes in The Truth War with all fervor, he has become comfortable with contradictions. Like the postmoderns he ridicules, the Bible is not a superintended document concerning what Jesus SAYS, it is a story / narrative about what Jesus looks like. These are indeed confusing days for the American church, and she has lost one that was once a voice of clarification amidst the crosstalk.
paul
Comments by “Karen” and “Jill” Capture the Fundamentals of the New Calvinist Lie and its Life Formula
Hardly anything that comes out of New Calvinism is the truth. I was reminded of this as I read a recent comment by “Karen” on the Michael Horton Trilogy post. See no law, hear no law, speak no law:
In the comment, Karen regurgitates the usual New Calvinist canned gospel along with the usual communication techniques that attempt to cover for a lack of validity; and attempts to demean those who are not on the cutting edge of the “New Reformation.” Here is the comment:
“You obviously haven’t listened to Horton on his White Horse Inn broadcasts, where he and the panel are always admonishing the church to preach the Law AND the Gospel. One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law, and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification. Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ” . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law). But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
I. Communication
The first thing we see in Karen’s comment under “communication” is the New Calvinist (NC) prerequisite for those who are not followers of NC. You have to read EVERY book any particular NC has written in order to be qualified to criticize them. This is a technique often used to defend John Piper who has written about 600 books on joy. He is the spiritual counterpart to Anne McCaffrey who wrote the mystical “Pern” series, and trust me, she couldn’t hold a candle to the first pope of NC, John Piper. Of course, this sets a standard not even foisted upon Holy Writ—the idea that you have to read the whole Bible to understand any of it. But as the fawning, Koolaid drinking writers of the Pyro blog note, “To know Piper is to understand Piper”(gag).
The second thing we see under communication is the misrepresentation of terms. Yes, Horton and the White Horse Inn gang constantly talk about law and gospel, but what they mean by those terms are not orthodox. Horton believes that the purpose of the law is to drive Christians to despair so that they will be totally dependant on Christ. Like Paul David Tripp, he also believes that any effort on our part to keep the law only breeds self righteousness. In “Another Gospel,” there will be a whole chapter dedicated to NC phraseology.
The third element in NC communication is intimidation: “You obviously haven’t…,” and “One must….” etc. Ever heard the one about what was written in the preacher’s sermon notes? “Point weak—pound pulpit here.” This works particularly well for Piper who is also helped by this because he looks like Yoda’s big brother.
II. New Calvinist Doctrine
1. The Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification.
The first element of NC doctrine can be seen in Karen’s statement as follows: “One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law,…” The goal of a believer is not to achieve righteousness for justification; that is a onetime legal declaration by God that happens when we believe. Christians seek to obey the law because “we make it our goal to please him” as colaborers with God in sanctification (2Cor. 5:9, 1Cor. 3:9, 1Thess. 3:2).
2. The Total Depravity of the Saints.
If the law has the same role in the lives of unbelievers as it does for believers, this logically speaks of ability being the same. In fact, Horton plainly writes in Christless Christianity, page 62, that justification (or, “gospel”) gives life to unbelievers in the same way that it gives life to believers when they revisit the gospel “afresh.” Horton also states on the same page that any other application besides the gospel in the Christian life results in the loss of salvation.
3. Denial of the New Birth.
Obviously, if our ability to obey the law is no more than that of an unbeliever, one must ask: “What about Christians being “new creatures”? That’s easy, NC deny the significance of the new birth. In the cradle of New Calvinism, Robert Brinsmead’s Australian Forum (along with G. Paxton and G. Goldsworthy [the Australian 3 or “A3”]), concurred that there is a new birth, but that lending significance to that fact would eclipse the preeminence of the gospel and the works of Jesus Christ. Example: yes, it’s true that there are planets that are 300 light years away from us, but what is the significance of them when discussing the Sun? Rick Holland uses this same hermeneutical logic in his book, “Uneclipsing The Son” to promote the NC doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. Consider this side by side comparison of quotes from G. Paxton and Michael Horton:
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.”
Horton: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own
‘Spirit-filled’ life?”
4. The Obedient Life of Christ as Part of the Atonement.
Known as the imputed active obedience of Christ, it adds the obedience that Christ practiced during His incarnation to our account along with righteousness. Therefore, active obedience is imputed to us, and any attempt on our part to obey is a denial of a key part of the atonement. I highly recommend pastor Terry Rayburn’s sound refutation of this doctrine here (5 Part series):
http://grace-for-life.blogspot.com/2011/03/active-obedience-imputation-is-not.html
Karen’s reflection of this doctrine can be seen in this statement: “….and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification.”
5. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event.
Karen says: “Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ‘ . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.’ Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law).”
This is the NC teaching that the Bible demonstrates contemplation on the gospel as the key to spiritual growth by a supposed grammatical pattern that always displays the works of Christ/gospel (indicative) prior to commands (imperative). This is hardly a consistent pattern throughout Scripture. Don’t be fooled by Karen’s typical NC nuanced doublespeak. She seems to be saying that our good works are a result of being saved by Christ, but she is really toeing the classic NC line that Christ is obeying for us because His obedience was imputed to us through the atonement. Contemplating the gospel results in an effortless display of His obedience—not ours. This can be seen in this part of her statement: “(what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf).” Obviously, if Christ has already “accomplished” IT, there is nothing more for us to “accomplish.” Notice that in her citation of Phil. 2:12,13, both God and believer “work,” but her implication is: go ahead and do what Jesus did and it will be effortless because he already accomplished it. So, any works in our OWN effort is not of Christ because when it is Him doing it, it doesn’t require our effort. If you doubt that’s the take, consider this statement by “Jill” whom I was having a discussion with last night:
“When Christ lives in us, everything is effortless because it is Christ living in us doing it all through us. When we have to work in our own strength to please God, we know that we are still bound by the law.”
In Jill’s statement, all the elements of what we are discussing here can be seen.
However, we must remember: like the new birth, the will to obey God is a gift, but with all gifts, we still possess it (new creatureship and the will) regardless of the fact that it is a gift. Therefore, we are enabled to obey—have the will to obey (which does not imply that we will always feel like the will is there), and it is really us obeying/working.
6. The Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and look how angry God was with them, so let that be a lesson to you; if you try to keep the law, your nothing but a Pharisee. No, no, even though the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law, you need a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness they had—the righteousness of Christ that comes by your non-effort which shows your faith.
This worn out, straw man eating a red herring argument used often by NC can be seen in these words by Karen: “But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
Again, pleasing Christ, and putting on the new creature while putting off the old, is not an attempt to secure justification as Karen suggests. And, Christ was saying the exact opposite of what NC say He is saying in Matthew 5:20. Because the Pharisees were actually antinomian law-breakers of the worse sort, Christ was saying that your life better look a whole bunch better than theirs. Christ’s beef with the Pharisees was not their supposed attempt/efforts to apply the truth to their life, but the fact that they distorted the law with their traditions, and thereby making the law “void” ( Matthew 15:6 ESV). This fact can also be clearly seen in the context of Matthew 5. The Pharisees were the ones who “relaxed” the law and taught others to do the same.
7. By attempting to keep the law, the Pharisees were only cleaning the outside of the cup and not truly dealing with the heart (Matthew 23:25-28).
Karen doesn’t touch on this, but it is the matching bookend of NC’s Pharisee angle, so I present it here as a bonus point. Supposedly, any effort on our part to keep the law only concerns the outer person. We supposedly change from the inside out by contemplating the gospel with the result being an outer manifestation of Christ’s obedience, not ours. But again, that is a distortion of what Christ was really saying. Christ was saying that outer obedience is always preceded by inner obedience, not contemplative spirituality:
“So you alsooutwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full ofhypocrisy and lawlessness.”
The word for “lawlessness” in this passage is “anomia” which means “without the law” or “anti-law” or “against the law.” The Pharisees were disobedient in regard to their inner life (thinking, reasoning, knowledge, etc). They were law-breakers on the inside and the outside both. Apparently, one of the primary reasons God destroyed mankind except for Noah’s family was: “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
III. Conclusion
Despite the fact that NC are masters of nuance and double speak, their formula for life is simply this: Living the Christian life is an effortless endeavor that only seeks to display the works of Christ and the gospel that flow from “worship” and spiritual contemplation. It is a formula that is wreaking havoc on Christian families and will continue to do so. And although most Christians today deny this doctrine based on terminology, it is how they function in real life. This can be easily demonstrated. When one goes to college, he/she will have to labor in various ways to eventually earn a degree. Not only that, they will have to learn something NEW in every class they attend every day in order to obtain a grade that illustrates that they have the knowledge necessary to perform a trade. That’s college—not sanctification, but yet, how many Christians have that attitude about what’s necessarily for the Christian life? And regardless of the fact that the apostle Paul said: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth,” Christian leaders insist that believers make the ABC’s of Christianity the A-Z.
paul
Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” Part 4: Mr. Holland Was For Obedience Before He was Against It, And The Sonship / AF Connection
On pages 46 through 56 (most of chapter 4), Holland makes a case that the book of Job is all about Christ. Of course, New Calvinist believe every verse in the Bible is about Christ so that’s no surprise. Though I believe his exegesis is a stretch to come to that conclusion, these pages are by far the less ghastly so far and have some merit. In addition to making this point, he seems to slightly redefine the word transcendence as primarily the difference between two things, rather than something that is superior or not confined by immanence. I know, this seems like nitpicking, but Holland seems to use his primary definition to make some sort of strict dichotomy between the Son and the Father that effects how we perceive the Trinity, and such dichotomies tend to make me suspicious. Not only that, it’s eerily similar to the “objective” part of COG (the centrality of the objective gospel) which teaches that gospel reality is completely outside of us. This can subtly set up a prism that requires all realities about the Father to be seen through the Son, rendering the Father as true, but insignificant when compared to Christ; and in fact, our biggest problem—with Christ coming to the rescue. Of course, there is some truth to that, but that approach also makes me uncomfortable with what seems like an unbalanced view of the Trinity that can lead to bad places.
Nevertheless, what follows is much easier to expound on. On page 59, Holland reiterates what makes GS what it is: contemplative spirituality. Holland states on page 59: “In other words, we see Christ now, and the more we know Him and the more we study Him, the more we become like the clear image we see of Him. Looking for [emphasis mine. This is supposedly what job one is for Christians when reading their Bible] and seeing and gazing [my emphasis] at the excellencies, the glories of Jesus leads to greater vision, sharper focus, deeper awareness of Jesus and His permanent abiding presence. It elevates the soul to a higher vantage point of worship. We must learn to stare at the Son of God such that we are blinded to all the allurements of the world! All encumbrances aside, all slack hardeness aside, everything aside but…Him.”
Along with this statement being a superb specimen of how GS instructs followers to read the Bible, looking for Jesus only; and specifically, his “excellencies” and “glories,” the statement shows the kinship between GS and Sonship Theology. In a book Jay Adams’ wrote to warn the church about Sonship, he wrote the following:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
And,
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Holland follows this up on page 60 and 61 with the usual GS slight of hand. On page 60, using John 14:21 as a point of reference, he makes several orthodox statements concerning obedience. He seems to be clearly saying that obedience is the gateway to a deeper love for Christ. He seems to be saying the same thing Christ is clearly saying in that text: obedience to Christ is synonymous with loving Him. In other words, obedience is a loving act (John 3:16).
I used to become perplexed by these sudden bursts of orthodoxy after reading page after page of “truth” seasoned with nuance because God’s people are not yet ready to accept that we have been supposedly living under a false gospel for the past 100 years. I calmly read pages 60-61 while enjoying a nice lunch Susan fixed for me. Two all beef patties smothered in pepper-jack cheese and jalapeños. No buns because I’m on a low-carb diet that is working fabulously (email me at pmd@inbox.com if you want the details). She also brought me a glass of tea sweetened with something other than sugar, but it was really good. Before I finished the last bite, Holland began to explain exactly what he means by “obedience” on page 61. He was for it on page 60, but on page 61, well, you see, what Jesus meant in John 14:21 is love and obedience are the same thing.
But you say: “Paul, that agrees with what you just said was orthodox!” Not exactly. I said that obedience is an act among many that is a demonstration of love. On page 61, Holland makes the point that they are the same thing, but obedience must be defined by love, and now we must ask ourselves what “love” is. Hmmmmm—get you hand on your wallet:
“So what does it mean to love Jesus? Yes, we’ve already seen obedience. That’s a given [I’m sure]. But [just like the “But”Light commercial: “Here we go!”] true Christians are distinguished from unbelievers not only by their obedience, but by their love for Christ. Let this question echo in your soul: Do you love Christ? Is He precious to you, as He was to Peter? Is He the hub of your faith and your life, [and here is the crux:] or have you made Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?”
NOTE, after saying obedience and love are intrinsically connected, he makes a dichotomy that is impossible to distinguish in real life. How can one possibly distinguish Godly obedience from making “Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?” It’s a false dichotomy that forces the reader to decide whether true love is a way of life or a “person to love.” And again, and again, regardless of a calling to live in a new way throughout Holy Writ, Holland does not qualify the statement.
HOWEVER, Holland then defines what this true love is on pages 61-67 after the pesky subject of obedience is relegated to its proper place in the back of the bus. He then breaks down a “biblical” definition of love into three categories: Love And Faith (p.61), Love And Understanding (p.64), and Love And Affections (p.66).
In the first segment, “Love And Faith,” Holland clearly shows this book’s kinship with the Australian Forum. I devote a whole chapter in my book, “Another Gospel” to Robert Brinsmead’s interpretive prism as taught by him and Paxton / Goldsworthy. Following this post, a full copy of that chapter can be viewed. On page 62, Holland describes faith as the “eye of the soul.” He then writes that Scripture is the lens used by faith and the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture for one purpose and one purpose only: “Suddenly the Bible comes alive and we see Christ’s excellence, His splendor!” Hence, this is the EXACT position of the AF: the Bible’s only purpose is to obtain a deeper knowledge of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit will not illuminate anything else but that. Holland writes on page 63: “There must be a faith that engages with God’s Word on Jesus and estimates it to be the most important information in the world” [which then becomes the interpretive mode of operation].
Therefore, the Bible is for the purpose of plunging the depths of seeing the glory of Christ and nothing else. Any other information in the Bible that seems to be contrary to that thesis is descriptions of what Christ has done and should teach us more about Him instead of being an instruction book for a different “way to live.” All of the commands in the Bible are meant to show us what Christ has done for us already, and to humble us because we can’t keep all of them perfectly anyway. As I heard one pastor say from a pulpit about three months ago: “You can’t keep all of God’s law anyway, so don’t even try.” Pondering the volume of commands should also drive us to the foot of the cross and more dependence on Christ. Supposedly.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that obedience is a natural result of “Staring At The Son” (the actual title of chapter 5). But how do we know when we are committing the horrible sin of “obeying Jesus in our own efforts?” Well, because it will FEEL like it—that’s how you supposedly know, and Holland emphasizes that point throughout the rest of chapter 5. Throughout the book, Holland reiterates the same worn-out GS points made by Francis Chan (“When it’s love, it feels like love”), John Piper (“Beholding as a way of becoming” and joy is synonymous with faith), Paul David Trip (Christians are still spiritually dead), and Michael Horton (we only grow spiritually when we “revisit the gospel afresh”). The following is the chapter of my future book where the AF view of interpretation is dealt with—which is the same approach propagated by Holland:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment