Kevin DeYoung Sings to the Flock at the 2012 T4G Conference
“DeYoung finished the message by making many good statements about obedience in the Christian faith, but he was simply talking out of both sides of his mouth.”
Here we go. The lonely lovers of the truth are already singing the praises of Kevin DeYoung for “getting it right” at the T4G. Gag. Actually, I have more respect for Tullian Tchividjian because he causes me to work less. Messages like this one from I was born sitting on a fence post DeYoung have to be meticulously unraveled and explained. But here is the easy part via my I was born with good ole’ fashioned horse sense grandmother: “Birds of the feather flock together.” At the beginning of the message, DeYoung identified himself as a New Calvinist. It is what it is. His theses that New Calvinists just need a little tweaking in regard to the relationship of obedience to sanctification, doesn’t fly with me. He runs with a bunch that believes in perpetual justification, and mere tweaking doesn’t fix heresy.
DeYoung began his message with about fifteen minutes of humor which I found both annoying and out of place when one considers the gravity of this subject in our day. Finally, when he got into some substance, he reiterated the fact that New Calvinism is a “resurgence” (because everyone else is out to lunch spiritually). He also said that the “centrality of the gospel” is the primary concern of the movement. That is, central in sanctification. This is just the same old song and dance; preaching reconciliation to the already reconciled is just as important as the reconciled preaching reconciliation to the unreconciled. From there, and throughout the message, DeYoung flips back and forth between toeing the New Calvinist line and the importance of putting forth effort in sanctification. At some points, he is actually theologically correct in the sermon, stating that we must “work out what God has worked in,” but then flips back to the contradictory New Calvinist position throughout the message. It’s pathetic.
In his introduction to the main points of the message after almost 30 minutes of foolishness, he starts out strong by saying that sanctification requires both hard work by us and the grace of God. Amen, but then he listed the four points of the message: growth in godliness requires Spirit powered, gospel-driven, faith fueled effort. Even though he describes “effort” as one of the four points, it isn’t, the message is really a three point message about the three different things that drive effort in sanctification. This is a grammatical twisting. Effort does not stand alone as one of the points because the other three points are modifiers. And, effort in sanctification is not, “gospel-driven”; that’s blatantly false.
New Calvinists trade the word “justification” for “gospel” so that this error is not completely obvious; ie, “justification-driven” or perpetual justification. Our effort in sanctification is not driven by justification because justification is a finished work and a legal declaration. We are not sanctified by justification, nor is justification the power source for our sanctification—regeneration is. Though there is agreement with orthodoxy on the other two, it must be assumed that all three are needed to power sanctification, so his premise is dead on arrival. Moreover, the fact that DeYoung states that justification (gospel) is needed in sanctification speaks to his like belief with all New Calvinists that justification and sanctification are linked together, and that sanctification must derive an efficacious element of its power from the gospel of justification. Game over. He can now dress this up any way he wants to, but that dog won’t hunt.
On his first point, “Spirit powered (effort),” even though no one would disagree that sanctification is Spirit powered, DeYoung uses this point to once again toe the New Calvinist/Gospel Sanctification line. He states that the Spirit’s role is to empower, show us “sinners” our sin, while mentioning that we as Christians run from our sin and want darkness (oh really?). He states this as a primary purpose of the Spirit’s work in sanctification: to illumine “sin/truth.” Deyoung primarily speaks of illuminating sin, but slips in “truth” along with it (“sin/truth”) to insinuate that sin is not the only thing he is talking about. But then he follows with the third role of the Spirit in sanctification which is to glorify Christ. Again, this is the same old New Calvinist line that restricts the use of Scripture for showing us two things only: our sin and Christ’s glory. He prefaces “sin” with “truth” to insinuate a general, or multiplicity of truth, but never specifies anything other than “sin.” This is deliberate deception. It’s the same old making the cross bigger as we see the depths of our sinfulness more and more, and the glory of Christ more and more. He then cites the staple New Calvinist Bible verse for this, 2Cor. 3:18 to make his point and refers to the “beholding as a way of becoming” truism.
In the second point (gospel-driven effort), he notes that “everyone agrees” that holiness flows from the gospel and good works flow from “good news.” Again, this, for all practical purposes is an admission that he believes in the fusion of justification and sanctification. And if justification is monergistic, well, you do the math. From here, DeYoung is simply trying to convince people that the horse is really a camel. He continued in the message to invoke the same old worn out all obedience flows from gratitude formula. You first contemplate the gospel and your sin which creates gratitude, then obedience flows from that. In real life, gratitude does not always walk with obedience, but often comes after. DeYoung at this point hints at orthodoxy by saying that there are “many other” motivations for obedience other than the cross, but of course, doesn’t mention them specifically or talk about them.
DeYoung finished the message by making many good statements about obedience in the Christian faith, but he was simply talking out of both sides of his mouth. He also prefaced those concluding statements with the same old “we can’t obey in our own strength” without any mention that it is not our strength only. If our strength is not involved in any way, who is doing the work? When we exercise, is it our own strength? And aren’t we supposed to do all things to the glory of God? So, if we are exercising to the glory of God, is the Holy Spirit lifting the weights for us? DeYoung criticized confusing cliché’s in this message while using the mega confusing New Calvinist cliché about “obeying God in our own strength.”
DeYoung lectured the audience about how Christians are confused by the way many are trying to make New Calvinism seem plausible in real Christian life. He acted as if his message was a clarifying voice among the background noise. What a joke. Everything about the message, especially the delivery, was a train wreck.
DeYoung is one of them. Birds of the feather flock together. He is trying to sell himself as a voice of reason among penguins. But he did make some troublesome, isolated statements about obedience. Though made out of one side of his mouth, I wonder, will he be invited back next year? I learned a lesson when I was in college: I tried to date three girls at the same time and ended up losing all of them. It will be interesting to see what the future holds for DeYoung. The penguin singing in the midst of the flock: “I just got to be me.”
paul
DeYoung’s Plan Won’t Work
Special K is at it again. Kevin DeYoung keeps writing orthodox-like articles about sanctification in hopes that he can get someone from the New Calvinist crowd to kinda agree with him without receiving the dreaded tweet from the first pope of New Calvinism, John Piper the First. Bye-bye you fill in the blank. Have you heard? Rob Bell is resigning from the church he founded—done in by the dreaded tweet.
I can tell from reading his stuff that he knows New Calvinism is propagating antinomian doctrine. However, they are so subtle about it that they could slip back into orthodoxy and the dumbed-down congregants of our day would never know the difference. This is what Special K is hoping for so he keeps writing stuff about sanctification to get someone to join what might be the beginning of the Great Slither back to orthodoxy.
So far—no takers. For one thing, you have Tullian Tchividjian pushing back against DeYoung and as many of his victims know—he’s one bad dude. Everyone saw how he cleaned house at Coral Ridge and few want any part of that. Chad Bresson, the author of Vossed World blog and a New Calvinist elder weighed in as well, saying that Young’s discussion of the difference between monergistc sanctification and synergistic sanctification is “interesting.” Both articles were the usual nuanced New Calvinist double-speak because they just can’t come right out and say that they believe Christ obeys for us. I doubt Special K still believes that, but you know, a man has to eat. If he can get the Great Slither going—he can have it both ways.
Bresson’s post, about a thousand words later, concluded with the following profound unction: “In the end DeYoung is helpful in showing us the drawbacks of using certain terminology to describe what the Bible teaches us about the role of the Spirit and our participation in our transformation into Christ’s image. We are participants in salvation history. Language is not always precise in delineating the inner machinations of how that participation comes to be. It’s easy to see the downward slopes off the deep end in both directions. And DeYoung, like others who may disagree on certain points, wants to avoid the deep ends.”
Likewise, DeYoung’s conclusion was nearly as profound: “So what do we see in this short survey of Reformed theologians. For starters, we do not see the exact language of monergism or synergism applied to sanctification….Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit….Third, we see in this Reformed survey the need to be careful with our words. For example, “passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active.”
Huh? Well, there was some definitive verbiage by pastor Terry Rayburn who isn’t very popular among that bunch because he stinks at nuance. Here were his comments at VW:
So the best question is not ” monergistic or synergistic?” The better question is, “Sanctification: by Law or by Grace?” The clear biblical answer is “by Grace”.
The Law (OC or NC) can neither save nor sanctify. We are no longer under the power of sin, why? Because we have the Law? No, because we are no longer UNDER Law, but Grace (Rom. 6:14). The Law is the very POWER of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), so certainly can’t sanctify. Of course, a quick Bible word search will show that the concept of “sanctification” is MOSTLY zeroed in on our once-for-all already-done sanctification. What we loosely call “progressive sanctification” is always by grace through faith, just like initial salvation.
Go Terry!!! Yaaaaaaaa Terry!!!! I love those New Calvinist guys that just come right and say sanctification is by the same grace that saved us, which is monergistic, soooo—you fill in the blank. Will the next Piper Tweet be, “Yaaaaaa Terry!!!!!”? Bresson didn’t follow-up on Rayburn’s comment, go figure.
Here, let me help also by quoting their Reformed daddy, RC Sproul. I agree with Sproul, this is a simple thing:
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).
As far as Rayburn’s candid comment about how the NC crowd views the law, especially John Piper, here is what Sproul said in the same book:
From the law comes knowledge of sin. Also from the law comes knowledge of Righteousness.
In working with God to be “set apart,” the law is an absolute must, and Bresson’s belief as he alludes to above that the Bible is a gospel narrative and not for instruction in sanctification is antinomianism of the baser sort. And obviously, if we believe use of the law propagates sin—that’s a whole other issue as well.
This is a simple thing: “I can DO all things through Chrsit who strengthens me.” We DO and Chrsit strengthens, and it’s a seamless experience—not a New Calvinist either all the Spirit or all me hermeneutic. But Sproul has it right; if we don’t work—neither does the Spirit: “I must work and God will work.” That’s why we will be judged in the end at the Bema Seat judgment that New Calvinists have to deny. Not a judgment for justification, but a judgment in regard to how well we appropriated the gifts God granted us. And by the way, when you receive a “gift”—you now own it!
The only thing confusing is the double-speak New Calvinist have to use to teach that Jesus obeys for us without actually saying it. And Special K might as well give up because antinomians rarely repent.
paul
The Significance of Kevin DeYoung’s Top Ten
“However, it is my hope that [DeYoung] will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our ‘sanctification tool belt,’ that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.”
“One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.”
“Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt; they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them.”
Kevin DeYoung, hereafter, “Special K” (SK), recently wrote a third post
( http://shar.es/HeU1Q ) clarifying his position on sanctification. SK wrote a prior post
( http://shar.es/HeU3w ) which was a capitulation to Tullian Tchividjian who responded to his first post on the same subject. In the second post, SK listed ten interpretive questions that he is considering while on a sabbatical for the purpose of writing a book on sanctification. The significance of these ten questions should not be missed. Those ten questions strike at the heart of New Calvinism, and it would seem that in light of his latest post, he has answered those questions in a way that is not favorable to New Calvinism. In fact, it almost seems like the latest post is in your face when compared to his response to Tchividjian’s “pushback” regarding his first post which only hinted of orthodoxy to begin with. The significance of these ten questions is the following:
1. Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
SK didn’t pull these questions out of the clouds. This question has to be asked because New Calvinist (NC) teach that God cannot be anymore pleased with us than He already is in Jesus Christ (that’s true in regard to justification). The “justified” believer, as opposed to simply, “believer” is not worded that way for no reason. Supposedly, to admit that there is something we can do to please God as believers is to take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Also, remember that the core beliefs of New Calvinism came from the Australian Forum, and their doctrine is primarily driven by the centrality of the objective gospel. In other words, the gospel is something outside of us, not inside (subjective). Inside considerations (like anything we would do [subjective]) cannot “eclipse” anything Christ has done (note: Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” will soon be available for purchase).
2. Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
This question is simply the other side of number one. New Calvinist teach that God cannot be displeased with us anymore than he can be displeased with Christ, and for the same reasons that we cannot do anything to gain more favor with God than we already have in Christ. Again, it’s not about us (subjective) and how the supposed displeasure of God would make us feel (subjective). SK seems to have answered this question for himself in the third post: “But God also motivates us by a sense of duty, by gratitude, by threats, by promises, and by the fear of the Lord.” And by the way, to NC, this statement is barely less than blaspheme.
3. Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both
trying to find a root sin?
Obviously, SK is questioning one of the four major tenets of NC: Theology of the Heart. This theology was added to NC via Sonship Theology and David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which was articulated in Paul Tripp’s “How People Change”
What Jonah knew and believed about God is what caused him to rebel. He knew God was a merciful God and would probably save the Ninevites, whom Jonah hated. That’s why he didn’t want to go there. In Jonah’s case, it was attitude, bad thinking, and a refusal to obey, not unbelief. It is evident in the book that Jonah had tremendous faith in God. But NC must make all issues in sanctification the same as justification which is primarily by faith only; so, it stands to reason that they have to make all sin issues in sanctification a belief issue. The NC position on this question is no better defended than in Tripp’s book. SK needs to read “How People Change” followed by the Donn Arms book review of HPC ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC ).
4. How are justification and sanctification related?
I think this question is now rightly, for the most part, answered by SK’s third post. I only take exception to a few statements thereof, but here is one: “Are we sanctified by remembering our justification? Yes.” SK is saying that contemplating our justification is still a viable way to grow spiritually, but he is presenting it as another tool “in our tool belt” rather than the only discipline from which all other duties flow (Dr. Peter Masters’ contention regarding Piper). However, it is my hope that SK will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our sanctification tool belt, that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.
5. Can we obey God?
This speaks to the NC doctrine of the total depravity of the saints. Again, most definitely, this originated with the Australian Forum who denied the new birth, or being born again. Michael Horton also denies the significance of the new birth and takes his cue from the Forum on that issue.
6. Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we
have done as we were commanded?
This clearly speaks to the NC belief that obedience in sanctification is synonymous with an attempt to be justified. Hence, asked another way: “Is the totally depraved believer really able to obey and know that it is legitimate obedience that pleases God?” One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.
7. How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
By describing the tools in our tool belt, not the NC belief that the Bible is only a tool for contemplating the gospel.
8. Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when
they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
No Kevin. Many Christians are walking in violation of their conscience because of what New Calvinism teaches. Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt, they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them. My brother—please flee—perhaps there is not too much blood on your hands.
9. Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness
and content with little progress in godliness)?
Of course they are! They are taught that they cannot be a part of the progress!
10. What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with
Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
It’s the antithesis of the Forum’s view that formed New Calvinism: “The centrality of the objective gospel.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
29 comments