Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 4: Spiritually Dead Christians
As I sort through the history of Seventh-Day Adventism, Robert Brinsmead’s biography, and the teachings of the Australian Forum (AF), my mind is overwhelmed with the theological elements and characteristics that liken to present-day New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology (NCGSS). However, there are two places in our endeavor where we can drive stakes thus far, and with certainty: the centrality and premise of everything gospel (ie., justification), and everything seen, understood, and interpreted through the gospel (justification) prism. In other words, two elements that make up the foundation of these two movements are exactly the same: a dogmatic refusal to let any truth eclipse justification, and a gospel-centered hermeneutic.
In the first, we also see the kinship between the two movements in the either / or interpretive schema. It’s what I call GB theology—you’re either with us—or you’re with the terrorist. In BOTH movements, you are either for justification only in sanctification (of course, that’s not how they would frame it)—or you are totally against justification by faith alone for salvation as well.
In the latter, the echo between the AF and the likes of Paul David Tripp regarding “all things must be seen in its gospel context” is utterly uncanny. I contend that the aforementioned facts show a historical uniqueness between the two groups that hardly persuade me that one didn’t come from the other.
This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth (PT) had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article. More research is needed, but I have a working hypothesis that the AF, and movements within Reformed Baptist circles that facilitated New Covenant Theology (NCT) played a part in John Piper’s injection into NCGSS.
Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
“Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. And the new-birth oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.1”
The footnote as in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, “The False Gospel of the New Birth,” Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, “We [“we” being the AF three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth,” he then continues to write, “Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.”
Stop right there. Let me now introduce another example (characteristic) of how the student looks like the teacher. Like NCGSS, AF writings are saturated with a bias against Evangelicals. Here, Paxton refers to the “typical evangelical approach.” As can be seen in this article, you can even accidentally get two examples of this if you refer back to the aforementioned Goldsworthy quote: “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.”
And stop right there again. I am going to introduce another related characteristic that the two groups share: the whole inside verses outside focus thing. What is that? Well, it dominates NCGSS teaching, especially that of Michael Horton. It is the idea that to focus on something like the new birth is to focus on us, or what is inside of us, rather than what is outside of us, namely, the gospel. This is a major theme of late in Horton’s writings. Paxton writes in the article that is the subject of this post:
“This approach to the new birth is incredibly introspective and self-preoccupied. Such evangelical ‘navel watching’ does nothing to commend robust Christianity to non-evangelicals or to those outside the church. It assaults the tender consciences of believers. 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. It is, in fact, anti-Christ.”
Sigh. Ok, I am really busy today and I can’t remember where I filed some Horton quotes that ape the AF example exactly, so let me take a minute and google “Michael Horton outside of us.” Be right back. Ok—it’s been about 30 seconds, and here is what I have, though not the best examples:
“Each of these themes serves to remind the believer that his or her righteousness is found not within, but outside.”
“It is essential, therefore, to point unbelievers and believers alike to Christ outside of their own subjective experiences and actions.”
I could now get into yet another apeian characteristic of how the two camps interpret anything to do with us as being “subjective,” while the gospel outside of us is “objective.” Of course, as I have written before: using the objective gospel prism to interpret everything in the Bible leads to gargantuan subjectivity, but I digress. The more one peers into the data, the more it’s like grabbing two handfuls of Jell-O out of the same bowl and comparing them. In fact, I asked my readers to pray about a project I have been working on, but the way the prayers were answered was totally unexpected. The recent discovery of the AF firebombed the project. The project was a workbook that analyzed the writings of John Fonville because the way he writes makes an articulation of NCGSS easy to understand. Not only that—Fonville is a very contemporary up and comer in the movement, which should make my comparison to AF writings very interesting. Fonville wrote in one article:
“Throughout much of my Christian life I was a professing Evangelical but in practice a functioning Roman Catholic…. What do I mean by that? I would habitually turn inward to conduct personal ‘fruit inspection’ and then wallow and mope around for long periods of time in despair, guilt and a troubled conscience. I would beat myself up with self-focused thoughts.”
Interestingly, Paxton says this in the article that we are considering: “The false gospel of the new birth imagines that the new birth refers primarily to what happens in the believer and that this is the greatest news in the world. This is classical Roman Catholicism.”
Even more characteristics could be discussed; such as, both camps relying heavily on the writings of Walter Marshal. More to my point, before I even knew of the AF, I wrote this in the now defunct Fonville project: : “In addition to ill definitions and antithetical exaggerations, Fonville, like other GS teachers, employs an either/or paradigm in interpreting Scripture. There will be many examples of this in his writings, and we observe the first here as he insinuates that the law can only have a plenary role in spiritual growth, or none at all. Fonwell will also deny a colaboring in spiritual growth (1Corinthians 3:9 and 1Thessalonians 3:2) by default—insinuating that both saint and Spirit cannot work in the process—it’s either/or.”
Besides the undeniable, twofold, primary foundation of both camps, everything justification dogma, and the gospel prism of interpretation, the list of identical characteristics and elements continues to get longer with each hour of study: either/or, us against Evangelicals, and outside focus verses inside focus, etc.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 3: New Calvinism’s Bad Seed
In one of the more contemporary blogs dedicated to Christocentric hermeneutics, it happened—Robert Brinsmead appeared, and started a lot of trouble. The blog is Vossed World, authored by Chad Bresson, an elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. According to a message preached there recently by another Clearcreek elder, the leadership considers Clearcreek to be a “New Covenant Theology” church. They are also very strong on Christian Hedonism (John Piper), Heart Theology (CCEF), and Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics which is the theme of Bresson’s blog. Bresson is also a member of the Earth Stove Society (dedicated to NCT).
Bresson posted an excerpt from the writings of Brinsmead that represented the beliefs of the Australian Forum (see chart in part 2) concerning the use and interpretation of the Scriptures. The Australian Forum (hereafter “AF”) included Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy. The post was brought to my attention by a reader. Though one person who commented on the post was totally unaware of it—Bresson responded to him by launching a defense regarding the relevance of Brinsmead’s apostasy:
“There are two reasons your analogy doesn’t wash: 1. Brinsmead wrote this ditty during a time of his life (as SDA, no less) when he affirmed reformed theology. That this guy is now an atheist is irrelevant. 2. What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years. In fact, given the recent articles written by the guys at Southern [see bottom of chart in part 2], what Brinsmead writes here could have just as easily have been written by one of them.”
The reader responded this way:
“I didn’t toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing the doctrine you are pursuing; I am not attacking you personally at all. I didn’t know this guy is now an atheist. I don’t know anything about him.”
The post and all the comments can be viewed here:
http://breusswane.blogspot.com/2008_07_17_archive.html
July of 2008 is a long way from what the AF wrote in the 1970’s. Bresson and the Chapel are respected as being on the cutting edge of New Calvinism (hereafter “NC”), and notice that he said, “What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years.” When I read the Brinsmead excerpt, I immediately recognized the fact that NC, ie., Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology (hereafter “NCGSS) needs such a hermeneutic to appear (consistent) and function consistently. My point by point rebuttal of the Brinsmead excerpt posted by Bresson can be read here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lq
Or here: Brinsmead
This post is the first that demonstrates that the top of the proposed genealogy chart looks the same as the bottom. Bresson and the Chapel are an excellent specimen representing the NCGSS movement—yet, Bresson states that what Brinsmead wrote some thirty years ago is representative of what has been written on his blog for the past three years. Furthermore, Bresson’s blog is also replete with Graeme Goldsworthy writings, who was one of the original three that made up the AF.
So what? Well, the original doctrine of the AF was a mixture of sanctification by faith alone, Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine, and “Redemptive” Historicism. Also, all facts so far strongly indicate that Brinsmead was the primary visionary and inventor of the doctrine—and he is now an apostate—not good. Most Christians don’t buy into the idea that God used an unsaved person to reveal something “new” to God’s people, especially someone who became apostate after leaving a cult! Moreover, nobody can deny that Goldsworthy is the darling of present-day NCGSS hermeneutics, and that he was also one of the original three that made up the AF.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy: Part 1, The Australian Forum and Seventh-Day Adventist Connection
It’s always been a bit perplexing to me. When you survey the Gospel-Driven, Gospel Sanctification landscape of our day that includes the T4G, Gospel Coalition, and a massive network of churches, the author of choice for their interpretive prism seems to be Graeme Goldsworthy (hereafter “GG”), an obscure, Anglican theologian from Australia.
As I said, “perplexing.” Until yesterday. While researching, I stumbled across an article written by a Christopher Taylor entitled, “Who is Bill Blogsmith?” Taylor (who I am attempting to contact for an interview) wrote the following:
“In the 1970’s a pair of Australian professors and pastors in the Anglican Church toured the world as the Australian Forum. This touring group went everywhere they were invited and preached the Word as best they could, with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding. As weeks go by I’ll be repeating and expanding on themes of this group, but you can read their thoughts in Present Truth Magazine which is online for free.
Robert Brinsmead became apostate and is sadly teaching rank heresy and frankly non-Christian beliefs. Geoffrey Paxton, the better speaker of the two, has dropped out of sight and I have lost track of him. But when they were the Australian Forum, they spoke God’s honest truth with power, conviction, and a powerful drive. Their humble efforts have shaped the thoughts and ideas of a new generation of theologians such as Rod Rosenbladt and Michael Horton.”
First, does, “….with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding” sound familiar? Secondly, though these guys are from Australia and were preaching in the nineteen-seventies, Robert Brinsmead is often quoted by the super-hip, who’s who of the Gospel Sanctification movement (hereafter “GS” and also known as New Calvinism—has deep roots in Sonship Theology). That’s a very interesting connection: from Australia in the seventies, preaching a gospel-centered sanctification—to playing a part in the latest rendition. Third, the author claims that this forum “shaped the thoughts and ideas” of a major player in the GS movement: Michael Horton. Fourthly, Isn’t GG from Australia? And isn’t he also an Anglican? Hmmmm.
Now GG isn’t looking so obscure, but the plot thickens. Wikipedia has this to say about the Paxton / Brinsmead relationship:
“Paxton has had significant interaction with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and a ‘keen interest’ in its theology.This began through his acquaintance with Robert Brinsmead, as both were critical of the charismatic movement.One source described the pair as “anti-Charismatic crusaders” after one meeting.They held public meetings supporting belief in justification by faith alone. Paxton contributed to Brinsmead’s Present Truth Magazine.”
Not only did Brinsmead and Paxton share a distaste for Charismatic theology, but they worked together, along with GG, in an endeavor to reform the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination (hereafter SDA) by primarily arguing the following along with other SDA theologians (like Desmond Ford): the SDA theologians of old held to the Reformed view of sanctification, and the SDA needed to return to their reformation roots. Hence, Brinsmead, Paxton, and GG were hyper-enamored by Reformed confessions and creeds. At times, to some, it seemed like the threesome gave those documents more credence than Scripture. Sound familiar? I have no idea what compelled these three to enter the SDA fray—perhaps my continued research will offer a theory on that. But the primary purpose of Present Truth magazine was to aid the threesome in the aforementioned endeavor. Another writer stated it this way in the comment section of a forum:
“Most, if not all, the magazine articles available on that site in pdf form date from the 1970s and 1980s and appeared in the printed editions that were available free of charge to anyone who asked, thanks to the generous financial support of Robert Brinsmead, who was a successful Californian avocado grower and was seeking to reform Adventism. Brinsmead himself wrote many of the articles, but many others were written by Rev. Geoffrey Paxton, a ‘conservative’ Anglican priest who taught at Queensland Bible Institute in Australia. Listed as a Consulting Editor was another ‘conservative’ Anglican priest, Rev. Dr. Graeme Goldsworthy, who also taught at QBI and later taught at Moore
Theological College in Sydney (the official theological institution of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney); I do not recall whether Goldsworthy wrote for the magazine or was merely a consultant. (Paxton wrote The Shaking of Adventism, and Goldsworthy is the author of several books.) I do not recall any pro-Adventist views being promoted in the magazines.
Their purpose was to promote what they saw as the truly Protestant view of salvation, which had been corrupted not merely by Adventists but by many other “Protestants” – even so-called ‘evangelical’ ones.”
GG, in fact, did write many of the articles. Furthermore, the very close kinship of beliefs between GG, Paxton, and Brinsmead can be seen by the fact that they reference each other in Present Truth articles. In particular, GG referenced (for agreement purposes) an article written by Paxton in which he wrote that Christians are NOT “born again.” Sound familiar? By the way, Paxton was dismissed from a teaching position for, as Desmond Ford puts it, “his refusal to lay aside his interest in the Adventist ‘cult’” (“The Truth of Paxton’s Thesis” by Desmond Ford. Spectrum 9:3 July 1978).
Now, in regard to the articles in Present Truth and their agreement with Gospel Sanctification—I would like to say that there are no words to describe the uncanny dittolarities, so I will use examples: it would be like distinguishing between two twin penguins; it would be like distinguishing between two capital Ts; It would be like distinguishing between John Piper’s opinions and Justin Taylor’s opinions. It’s the same stuff, and in mass volumes.
Moreover, I was surprised to see that Jon Zens, a primary figure in the development of New Covenant Theology (a GS tenet), also wrote at least one article for Present Truth as well.
A lot more research needs to done which will be reflected in part 2 and other articles following, but it would appear that the Australian Forum preceded Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology. The Australian Forum may, or may not be, the cradle of GS theology. So far, we see a road; some parts wide and well paved, and other parts narrow, from the Forum Trio in Australia, to Michael Horton and others at Westminster (probably one being Edmund Clowney). Then to others at Westminster as well; namely, Jack Miller, and Tim Keller. From them, to David Powlison, Paul Tripp, and Timothy Lane. How Sonship then became Gospel Sanctification is sketchy, but should be easy to figure out in time. Let me further bolster this a little bit by quoting a pastor who graduated from Westminster with a MDiv:
“Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary, came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller, rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF, entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL).
If you want a taste of Sonship theology you can find it in Gospel Transformation put out by World Harvest Ministries; Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller; or A Faith Worth Sharing by C. John Miller.”
In the forthcoming parts, I will compare the Australian Forum’s theology with GS/ Sonship. Is it the cradle of GS, or just another stop along the way? Did this trio create a doctrine designed to refute Charismaticism and Adventism without properly regarding the truth? What does the rest of the family tree look like? Lord willing, we will find out.
paul
Should Christian Doctrinal Debate Be Public?
I have taken a lot of heat lately over my public criticism of New Calvinism. Some arguments, for example, go something like this:
“I respect you working hard at something you so fiercely believe in but in the grand scheme of the Great Commission, do these arguments help or hurt the cause of Christ? Sparring between brothers in a good debate is one thing, but making a spectacle of Christianity is not a testament of the grace of God. It is dangerous to publicly call out other brothers.”
Though this comment was made in the same thread as those defending New Calvinist, that wasn’t the intent of this Christian—the intent was to simply pose the question for consideration. However, there was an element of New Calvinism that I wanted to post on that can be based on this question; so, let the New Calvinist themselves answer this question. Also, you can frame this post in regard to comments like the following as well: “Who are you to publicly criticize these great men of God?” Or: “How dare you slam God’s chosen men?” Or: “DA Carson is the greatest theological mind in recent history—who are you?”
Let me set the table. At the 2006 Together for the Gospel conference (T4G), New Calvinist presented an official statement on “the gospel.” T4G is a gargantuan organization (along with The Gospel Coalition) that promotes New Calvinism. The document was divided into three primary categories: “In the essentials unity…in the nonessentials, liberty…and in all things, charity.”
In the essentials unity? Many of the core leaders of T4G are Charismatics. In fact, a huge portion of the New Calvinist movement includes Sovereign Grace Ministries which is an organization founded on—get this: “Reformed Charismatics.” One of the T4G’s “Core four” is CJ Mahaney who is president of SGM. So, obviously, teaching that Christians don’t get all of the Holy Spirit when they are saved is not essential to the gospel. Hmmmm.
In the nonessentials, liberty? That would be anything and everything other than the four core elements of New Calvinism: sanctification by faith alone (sanctification by justification only), the total depravity of the saints, daily salvation, and Scripture as narrative only—not instruction. Please, please, don’t complain that these four tenets are not substantiated in this post; this blog is pregnant with direct quotations from New Calvinist that confirm these tenets. Also, indicative of the movement’s confusion, part of Article XVI states, “We further affirm that the teaching office of the church is assigned only to those men who are called of God in fulfillment of the biblical teachings.” Though I agree, what does that have to do with the essentials of the gospel? That’s more of an essential than Pneumatology? Not only that, Charismatics ordain women all the time! I might also add that Steve Camp had the following complaint in regard to the document: “In these eighteen articles there is no Scripture listed.”
In all things, Charity? Here, I finally get to the point: all things charity unless you’re an orthodox evangelical. Because of the shear mass of this movement and its immense media power; and in a twist of absurd irony, there has never been a time in redemptive history when orthodox Christianity has been more fustigated publicly by professing Christians. The best known proponents of the movement constantly accuse evangelicals at large of promoting a false gospel, and nothing has ever been more public. Furthermore, it boils down to nothing more than a call for mass division in the church. As a matter of fact, I was attending a church in Fort Wayne, Indiana that was loosing members to a New Calvinist church in the area, and the elders couldn’t figure out why. Not only that, the departing members seemed to be offended, and no wonder.
Though, again, several examples can be found on this blog, I will cite some examples:
Tullian Tchividjian: “As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters…..Fundamentalist smother the gospel in moralism.”
Paul Washer: [I don’t believe that] “even 15% of my Baptist brethren are saved….we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us [emphasis mine]. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is ‘the’ message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Michael Horton: “Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both” [in other words: if you don’t believe in sanctification by faith alone—your lost, and that would definitely be the vast majority of evangelicals].
Chad Bresson: “I believe the greater danger lies with those who would so exalt the Bible [by using it for instruction and wisdom], that the Centrality of Christ in all of life and all of history is eclipsed. And that is the legacy of the conservativism of our own day.”
John Piper: “ You never outgrow the need to preach to yourself the gospel….I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation” [if you don’t preach the gospel to yourself everyday].
Comment on an article by Justin Taylor, The Gospel Coalition Blog: “It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification [salvation] occurs EACH [emphasis NOT mine] time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins [among the many other comments posted on this article including those by Justin Taylor and Chad Bresson—none disputed this comment / statement. In fact, Bresson supported it by indicating that Christ presently obeys for us].
Paul David Tripp: “I am deeply concerned that the gospel has been redefined in the contemporary church in a terribly significant way.”
Concerning the aforementioned question, I will answer it from the standpoint of this blog; when a massive movement calls on evangelicals to acknowledge that they have been sold a bill of goods concerning the gospel for the past several hundred years, and in a very public way, does one have any choice but to counter that publicly? I don’t think so. Can the ignoring of such a movement hinder the gospel? Absolutely.
paul
Discernment Ministry and Philippians 4:13
I am working on a major project right now in regard to GS/Sonship theology. But as I often do, I let myself get distracted, and started doing some reading for a post that is in the batter’s box. Even with being immersed in this foul doctrine, God keeps showing me more, and more. One reality that I have seen of late (discovered in the project I mentioned) is how the movement has systematically redefined almost every tenet of the Christian faith. This tempted me to put some thought into the post that is in the batter’s box. The post will be about how GS has redefined the traditional definition of Antinomianism. Guess what? It’s not what you thought it was—it’s really legalism! Go figure.
I am using (for the post) what I think will be the future, official systematic theology of the GS movement: “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the way” by Michael Horton (over 1000 pages). I’m not a prophet, but I would be willing to bet that this book is already the official text for systematic theology in many seminaries. As I was reading the section on Antinomianism and the relationship of law to the Christian life on pages 673-680, something occurred to me, but I will share some other thoughts first.
In that section, Horton employs the usual techniques found in GS teaching: lots of orthodox statements, red herrings, straw men, pink elephants, nuance par excellence, and criticism of movements that believe the same thing GS proponents believe. Then it occurred to me. I’m not smart enough, educated enough, tenacious enough, disciplined enough, organized enough, connected enough, loving of the truth enough, and rich enough to fight this movement. I am up against a doctrine propagated by highly respected men who are paid to do what they do full-time. And…. I guess that’s the beauty of it all.
“ I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.” Yes I can. I can be God’s kind of husband, father, parishioner, worker, etc., etc., and God can also use this hillbilly from Portsmouth, Ohio to bring this vile doctrine to ashes. The bigger the mountain—the more glory for God. Let it be so.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments