Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 5
Again, the purpose of this interview is education, not debate from the interviewer. But to accentuate the interview, I invite vigorous debate in the comment section. After his response here, I have decided to move on to the next topic.
Q: Me.
Responses in blue.
Italics are third-party references used in questions.
Continued from part 4. Q: I’m not so sure about that clarification. Let’s take a pure, unadulterated NC view of justification and see where you agree or disagree:
The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification; For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification. AGREED
And…Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. In other words, our sanctification is fueled/motivated by the grace of salvation. In a very technical sense, it is grace that precedes justification (i.e., the sovereign work of regeneration) that necessarily leads to justification, that brings us as Christians to the point of gratitude for grace. Regeneration is a monergistic act of the Holy Spirit where as justification is a synergistic act between God and man (i.e., God promises IF we believe, THEN we will be saved/justified). Traditionally, most classical “reformed” Christians have great difficulty labeling justification as synergistic, but that is because of the historical line of reasoning from Arminian and Pelagian forefathers.
Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins. Foundationally, yes. Exclusively, no. There are other motivating factors for a Christian, But they all coincide with a God/Christ centered motivation. The desire to be holy stems from a renewed heart’s love and passion to want to conform to the image of Christ, because of the gratitude for Christ, because of the joy found in glorifying Christ, his life, death and resurrection.
And…Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action. Agreed.
[Q] Second part of this question: I’m not so sure evangelicals would say that, Any/all acts of obedience, we would say, are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit. “It is God who works in you, both to will and to act.” I am not an advocate of monergistic sanctification, so I hope I didn’t leave that impression. Classical Christianity understands sanctification as a synergistic act between God and man. God works in us, we work it out. The difference between “reformed” synergism and non-reformed synergism is that the former is understood as a sovereign-synergism and the latter, not.
That being said, when I/we say any/all acts of obedience are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit, we make reference to the monergistic act of the Holy Spirit whereby the bondage of our will has been liberated “alone” by the power of the Holy Spirit, and from then on out, the entirety of our obedience drives its ultimate “power” from the Holy Spirit. “What do you have that you have not been given, and if you have been given it, why do you boast as though you have not…For by him and through him and to him are all things. To God alone be the glory forever.”
[Q] Please distinguish this as opposed to sanctification by faith alone which evangelicals would reject out of hand. “Sanctification by faith alone…” does not mean we sit back and believe in some kind of fatalistic sanctification, that we just sit back and wait for God to, magically, “do everything.” SBFA is, as Martin Luther described it, an active/living faith. Utterly passive sanctification is agreeably just a fancy way of advocating antinomianism. SBFA simply means, we are sanctified, we are changed and made increasingly holy, as we trust God, at his word, trusting him by believing and obeying everything in his word, not just the verses that talk about believing in the life, death and resurrection of Christ. We trust him with all of our life by embracing and believing all of his word.
[Q] Third part of this question: How should we reconcile this with believers being described as “co-laborers with God” and the Holy Spirit being our “Helper.” To me, the reconciliation is very simple. We have paradoxical revelations in Scripture, both transcendent and imminent dealings with God and man. Both camps error when emphasizing one facet at the expense of the other (can you say Christological paradox? J). The difference between the two theological camps rests within the understanding that there is paradoxical revelations/teaching in Scripture that can lead one to believe that, transcendently, God does everything or imminently, God waits for man to accomplish anything.
[Q] Fourth: What’s you evaluation of the following statement:
Sanctification is cooperative. Agreed.
There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. Agreed.
If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. Again, this concept has validity so long as the balanced understanding of transcendence and imminence remains intact. Yes, God does draw near to those who draw near to him…If we abide in Christ, then he will abide in us…I believe in those contingent truths and promises like nobody’s business.
The point of departure from we what we would describe as evangelical orthodoxy stems from an autonomous understanding or practice of synergism, once the believer has been regenerate. The idea that once the HS has regenerated one’s life, somehow they are, for all practical purposes, autonomous, a sort of neo-deistic practice of the Christian life, that God has regenerated an individual and basically now, sits back for the rest of their spiritual life waiting to see what they will do with the regenerating life they have been given. This, we would say, is not how the Christian is to understand synergistic sanctification. That would be better defined as self-righteous self-betterment.
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. Agreed. We would simply qualify this as being motivated to chase after our sanctification via. the Christ centered-gospel motivation.
Sanctification is, undeniably, a synergistic process. God works concurrently with our human agency. However, theologically, there is a difference between “reformed” and “non-reformed” synergism and concurrence. For that reason, the previous entire statement can mean two different things to two different theological persuasions.
An Open Letter to Dr. Lou Priolo
To Elder Lou Priolo, Eastwood Presbyterian Church
Mr. Priolo,
I am writing you this letter to ask that you stand for the truth and families. As you know, standing for families and truth means more than writing books about it. At issue is your planned teaching engagement at Clearcreek Chapel’s “Family Enrichment Conference” in January of 2012. At issue is the fact that such appearances by teachers of your stature lends unwarranted and dangerous credibility to men who have wreaked havoc in the lives of many people through their unbiblical counsel and cult-like behavior.
This is an open letter because the likes of Robert Jones and Stuart Scott have ignored my pleadings in the past. Scott’s response was typical of those in our day who claim to love the truth—it went something like this: “Not my problem.” Robert Jones, whose claim to fame is a “peacekeepers” ministry, also ignored the pleadings of this ministry and stood with Clearcreek Chapel though that church has a very lengthy list of unresolved conflict with many, many Christians. If I didn’t know better, I would say that there is a mode of operation among the visible leaders of our day that automatically dismisses the evangelical peasantry they are selling books to, but maybe my doubts on that are naive.
Among those, at least two families chose to move to other states to get as far away from the Chapel as possible. Not my choice. The Chapel’s outrageous and unbiblical behavior towards my family can be observed here: How PPT Came About. They have been confronted on numerous occasions and refuse to repent. Therefore, they need to be treated like any other “believers” who refuse to repent according to Matthew 18.
If you choose to question them about this matter, let me send you court documents from the divorce proceedings and the Guardian ad Litem—people tend not to tell the same stories under oath that they do in church. You may also want a copy of a letter they sent me explaining away a false accusation they were caught in: they supposedly thought they had brought my bogus church discipline to a second level because of a mistake made on the minutes of an elder’s meeting. A church of less than 300 people, eight elders, and they thought I was in the second step of discipline because of a mistake in the minutes of a meeting? Right. Actually, the lie was told to try to cover for other documented behavior after I sent a letter to the fellowship of churches they belong to.
Dr. Priolo, I recently had a discussion with a pastor who has noticed a trend in Christians being reluctant to join churches or enter into formal biblical counseling with pastors. That shouldn’t surprise us. When the chips are down, parishioners will be on their own and they know it. It’s time for the professional courtesies to stop. You men are not doctors and lawyers, you’re pastors—your allegiance is to Christ for the sheep—not each other.
Be different. Send the right message. That’s my plea to you.
Paul M. Dohse
Dear Sherwood Baptist Church, Let Me Clarify
Are you confused by the White Horse Inn’s criticism (White Horse Inn) of your new movie, “Courageous”? Let me clarify. The criticism is driven by a doctrine that is antithetical to traditional evangelicalism. It is a doctrine that is perhaps the most covert in church history, using all of the same terminology and lingo, but with a totally different approach to issues of justification and sanctification.
The movement, known as, “New Calvinism” has been “roper doping” evangelicals for the past twenty-one years. It was primarily developed by two men in the early seventies—Jon Zens and Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-Day Adventist. The doctrine they developed together split into two different directions under two different names: New Covenant Theology and The Centrality of the Objective Gospel.
Jon Zens tried to promote the doctrine in Reformed Baptist circles and met stiff resistance from Walter Chantry and others. Chantry rightly identified the doctrine as antinomianism. Antinomians don’t like the idea that Christians can play the robust role in sanctification as presented in your movie—especially as instructed from the word of God specifically. Chantry also wrote a book contending against the doctrine entitled “God’s Righteous Kingdom.” Chantry’s son wrote a defense of his father’s book against New Calvinist DA Carson who criticized the book because Jon Zens is New Calvinist family, though they don’t like to claim him because of his SDA connections. Of course, Carson was not honest about why he was really criticizing the book—just like White Horse Inn is not being honest about the criticism of your movie.
Robert Brinsmead propagated the doctrine in Presbyterian circles where it became known as Sonship Theology. But Presbyterians, most notably Jay E. Adams, also waged a spirited war against it. In fact, Adams also wrote a book to contend against the doctrine as well. The doctrine is banned in many Presbyterian churches. Its propagators therefore changed the label to “Gospel Transformation.” Gospel-driven this, gospel-centered that, gospel-you fill in the blank.
For ten years, few people realized the doctrine was the same as Sonship and NCT. In 2004, some people caught on and dubbed the movement “Gospel Sanctification.” Adams recently added a Gospel Sanctification archive to his blog and has said the doctrine is dangerous and must be stopped. Apparently, Reformed Baptists have not yet put two and two together on that one; probably because Jon Zens is no longer at the forefront of the movement and that’s who they identify as the center of the controversy.
In 2008, the movement was dubbed “New Calvinism.” Personally, I was never able to understand New Calvinism until I studied The Centrality of the Objective Gospel’s theological journal, Present Truth, later renamed, Verdict. Therefore, let me introduce you to the doctrine via Present Truth volume 16, article 13:
The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification. For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification.
And:
Unless sanctification is rooted in justification and constantly returns to justification, it cannot escape the poisonous miasma of subjectivism, moralism or Pharisaism.
And:
Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins.
And:
Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.
Sanctification is justification in action? But Justification is by faith alone. Historically and biblically, evangelicals have embraced justification by faith alone but reject sanctification by faith alone. The characters in your movie are hardly faith alone / let go and let God kind of guys. Hence, the WHI criticism. The characters in your movie, like most evangelicals, would reject a gospel contemplationism that seeks a deeper understanding of justification/gospel first and then waits to see if God is going to do anything accordingly. Consider therefore this comment by WHI fellow Michael Horton:
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.
Yes, the characters in your movie wouldn’t be much for the idea of being resaved everyday—would they?
Neither do I think the Christian types portrayed in your movie would agree with the idea that Christians are totally depraved and that all of our works are as filthy rags before the Lord. Zens and Brinsmead on that:
The regenerate man is no whit different in substance from what He was before his regeneration.
Brinsmead had a colleague who helped him with a project that promoted said doctrine named Geoffrey Paxton. He wrote an article in Present Truth denying that the new birth was part of the gospel. It was entitled, “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” The thesis of the article was that the new birth is purely the work of justification, and not part of the gospel. They believe that “infusion of grace” (ie., the new birth) implies a capability to work with God in sanctification which is supposedly a false gospel. That’s also because their doctrine synthesizes justification and sanctification. Hence, the complaint that your movie didn’t have enough gospel. But of course, the movie isn’t primarily about the gospel, but rather the living out of the Christian faith—which they teach is done by continually returning to salvation. So, compare these two quotes, one from Geoffrey Paxton, and one from WHI’s Michael Horton:
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.
~ Geoffrey Paxton
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
Your movie is important and I enjoyed it very much. The Bible says that spiritual cowards will not inherit the kingdom of God. Yes, a pity that this kind of teaching has to be in movie form because it’s not being taught in the local church. For that reason, I stopped short of the ovation that took place in the theater where Susan and I watched it. Nevertheless, keep-up the good work. Now reread the WHI critique and see if anything rings a bell.
paul
Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 4
I don’t think the working definition(s) of justification, sanctification or regeneration is what is being contended. I think we’re pretty much on the same page with those definitions. It is the cause or motivation behind our sanctification I believe we are discussing.
Any/all acts of obedience, we would say, are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit. This begins at regeneration and continues until the believer dies or meets the Lord in the clouds J. Historically, we believe the Holy Spirit uses the means of Scripture, via. the foundational reference of our justification, as motivational towards our sanctification. Hence, the sacraments of baptism and communion are symbolic “means of grace” whereby the emphasis is upon the life, death and resurrection of Christ and how those events practically effect our lives (i.e., sanctify us). Or in other words, we would say “the gospel of the sacraments is given and designed to keep our focus Christward alone, that he would receive any/all glory, that our motivation would stem outside of ourselves and upon him, to be conformed into the holy son of God we’ve been called to be.” The sacraments, we believe, are given as directly connecting sanctification from our justification, something we see as historic as the Scriptures themselves.
Q; I’m not so sure about that clarification. Let’s take a pure, unadulterated NC view of justification and see where you agree or disagree:
“The Present, Continuous Nature of Justification; For all its strength, Reformed theology tends to relegate justification by faith to an initiatory action in the soteriological process. This is because it contends that the subjective (personal) justification of the believing sinner is a once-and-for-all, nonrepeatable act. Hence the relationship between justification and sanctification is seen as justification succeeded by sanctification.
And…Since the life of holiness is fueled and fired by justification by faith, sanctification must constantly return to justification. Otherwise, the Christian cannot possibly escape arriving at a new self-righteousness. We cannot reach a point in sanctification where our fellowship with God does not rest completely on forgiveness of sins.
And…Christian existence is gospel existence. Sanctification is justification in action.”
Second part of this question: I’m not so sure evangelicals would say that, “Any/all acts of obedience, we would say, are empowered alone by the Holy Spirit.” Please distinguish this as opposed to “sanctification by faith alone” which evangelicals would reject out of hand.
Third part of this question: How should we reconcile this with believers being described as “co-laborers with God” and the Holy Spirit being our “Helper.”
Fourth: What’s you evaluation of the following statement:
“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”
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
4 comments