Frank Turk Helps Case Against New Calvinism Before Excommunicating Me From Pyro
“So, is understanding Piper like going to college? Are there prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it?”
“Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down: ‘Going forward, ‘Paul’ will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.’ ”
As Susan and many of my close friends know, the ill effects of New Calvinist theology on real life hits close to home for me. For me, this isn’t intriguing theological debate—I see the debris that is continually being cleaned up after this hideous doctrine. One writer called John Piper “the elder statesman of New Calvinism.” Yes, him: the one, who among other things, proclaims with certainty how someone who is genuinely saved will feel during the conversion process—apparently, they will always have joy. But the problem is how many of us, especially in western culture, and especially a new Christian, might interpret “joy.” Isn’t dogma concerning how we”feel” during conversion a subject that is best left alone lest it sets up a stumbling block to salvation? (As I have personally witnessed). Not for John Piper—he fearlessly pontificates with all confidence concerning such matters, like other New Calvinist such as Tim Keller who recently proclaimed that those who are genuinely saved must also repent of all “good works” that they did while they were unbelievers.
The insanity that is New Calvinism matters not to those I used to deeply respect among Evangelical leaders. John MacArthur and his closest associate, Phil Johnson, are absolutely hell-bent on lending creditability to the likes of John Piper via association and accolades. Phil Johnson authors a blog named Pyromaniacs. I have visited Pyro on two occasions (with multiple visits within a short time frame for each occasion)—at the behest of a friend: yesterday, and a year ago because of dialogue that was occurring there that my friend wanted me to be privy to.
Before I continue, the purpose of this post is to reveal the fact that Pyro will defend Piper for any reason and at all cost. Why? Have they, including MacArthur, become New Calvinist? I’m beginning to think so. The exchange also enabled me to better articulate what Piper teaches, which is very opportune because of his mastery in deceptive doublespeak. The latter is my primary purpose. If you want to skip all the drama and focus on that, see the two GREEN sections.
The latest topic was another open letter to John Piper authored by a member of the Pyro Team of authors, Frank Turk. The letter was like the last one I was referred to which was a “gee whiz, pweeze stop saying stuff wike that because we wuv you soooo much and it’s getting harder and harder and harder to defend you.” After being accused by Turk on an initial comment of being off-topic, I noted the first comment by another Pyro Team member (Dan Phillips) to make sure I was perceived as being on-topic regarding further comments:
Another stellar letter. Thanks, Frank.
I may say more later, but for now let me join you in affirming my own appreciation for and personal indebtedness to John Piper. Those factors don’t dull the concern I feel for Piper’s attempt here to help Warren; they heighten that concern. I think the interview neither helps Warren personally, nor does it help his perception in the eyes of those who are concerned about his (to be charitable) many missteps.
My comment that caused a disturbance was the following:
In light of Elizabeth’s comment and, [Frank Turks answer to it] “I read Ms. Taylor as saying that the radical anti-Warren crowd is disowning Piper without grasping Piper. I agree with her,” I assume the following is on-subject: I am completely indifferent to who Piper associates with because I have formed judgments about what Piper believes based on what he says and what he writes.
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value” (see Matthew 26 and Hebrews 11 on that ridiculous notion). My concern is for those he associates with more than anything.
A comment came later by a Pyro reader that challenged my accusation:
Paul, your comments should be retracted if you cannot back them up with evidence. Anyone who has spent time in Piper’s works already knows that you have either grossly misinterpreted his positions (at best) or are simply slandering him (at worst). Either way, you should retract the statements.
The challenge was pulled down by Turk later. Here is my response:
1. He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
2. He believes Christians are still “enslaved” to sinful passions: “Yes, it becomes increasingly evident that the experience of joy in God is beyond what the sinful heart can do. It goes against our nature. We are enslaved to pleasure in other things (Romans 6:17).” [Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his “Desiring God” website].
“We [Christians] are enslaved to pleasure…” That’s not true about a Christian in ANY regard. Notice he cites Romans 6:17 which is in the past tense, but his statement is in the present tense speaking of the same condition of the past tense verse. How can he do that? Easy—he thinks justification and sanctification are the same regarding our role.
3. He believes sanctification and justification are the same thing: From Another Gospel P.M. Dohse, p.111 concerning Piper’s sermon, God Strengthens Us by the Gospel:
“’I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone. I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.’
Piper begins this section with the following: ‘I know that there are people reading this who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation.’ In context, what does he mean that they are not ‘trusting Jesus Christ’? Well, he continues: ‘Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’ So, who is he talking to? I’m glad you asked, he continues in the very next sentence: ‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel.’ He is talking about being strong, or strengthened, in regard to ‘us’ (remember the title of the sermon that the video was excerpted from? ‘God Strengthens Us by the Gospel’). In other words, exerting our own effort in the sanctification process, and especially apart from the gospel, will result in ‘condemnation.’ This is a plea for any person who believes in synergistic sanctification to be saved.”
CONTINUE
4. He believes (still undefined by him) joy ALWAYS proceeds saving faith:
“The pursuit of joy in God is not optional. It is not an ‘extra’ that a person might grow into after he comes to faith. Until your heart has hit upon this pursuit, your ‘faith’ cannot please God. It is not saving faith” (Desiring God page 69).
“We are converted when Christ becomes for us a Treasure Chest of holy joy” (Desiring God page 66).
“Before the decision comes delight. Before trust comes the discovery of treasure” (Desiring God, page 68).
“Something has happened in our hearts before the act of faith. It implies that beneath and behind the act of faith which pleases God, a new taste has been created. A taste for the glory of God and the beauty of Christ. Behold, a joy has been born!” (Desiring God page 67).
“Not everybody is saved from God’s wrath just because Christ died for sinners. There is a condition we must meet in order to be saved. I want to try to show that the condition…is nothing less than the creation of a Christian Hedonist” (Desiring God page 61).
“Could it be that today the most straightforward biblical command for conversion is not, ‘Believe in the Lord,’ but, ‘Delight yourself in the Lord’?” (Desiring God page 55).
“Unless a man be born again into a Christian Hedonist he cannot see the kingdom of God” (Desiring God page 55).
5. He believes that obedience without joy during the act “strips obedience of its moral value”: “Unless a spontaneous affection for my person motivates you, your overtures are stripped of all moral value” (Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial written by John Piper and available on his Desiring God website).
Turk responded with a classic New Calvinist defense—if you haven’t read all of Piper’s books (what? 600 or so by now?), you can’t evaluate any of his particular statements:
Paul:
You have never read the book, “What Jesus Demands of the World”, by John Piper, have you?
So, is understanding Piper like going to college? There are prerequisite books to understanding his other books? Notice that Turk does not address my reply, but brings up another book. Why? Was Piper for it before he was against it? However, after this, he did reply:
I have read Paul’s mini-thesis on Dr. Piper and have found it, um, shall we say “less than serious with the subject matter, [Frank, please just address the quotes that plainly demonstrate my accusations] but very serious in terms of offensiveness.” It’s out, and if it turns up again, it will get deleted again [thanks for the warning Frank—like I would try to repost it—you take yourself waaaay too seriously].
Paul: for your own edification, [thanks Frank, got anything on discernment?] here’s my single-subject justification for deleting your posts [because you can’t answer the others].
You said:
[QUOTE]
He believes that the Law only expresses the works of Christ and not any obligation on our part: “What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses?
Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more” (John Piper Sermon: “How to Use the Law of God Lawfully to Bear Fruit For God”).
He’s saying that we are dead to the Law in regard to it having power in our sanctification. Is that true (Mathew 4:4 John 17:17 James 1:25)? Are we to just meditate on the law or obey it also? Do you really think he left out “obedience” by accident? He is also saying that we should read it as if Christ effects our sanctification in the same way he effected our justification. In other words, sanctification by justification. Also, the “Law of Moses” bit is a deliberate smoke screen. Is he saying we should only meditate on the Law of Moses and do something different with the rest of Scripture? As usual, he creates confusion in the way he uses words, like, all the time.
[/QUOTE]
Here is the complete text of that sermon
The context for this sermon is a supplement to his 3-year preaching through the book of Romans — Rom 7-8, for example. You’ve read it, I am sure: [no Frank, I didn’t take that Piper prerequisite course] “we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive,” “I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me,” “I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” But also “For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do.”
So Piper’s starting point is not whether there is a command to general obedience, or whether we ought to seek to do it: it is Paul’s own words which tell us that seeking justification of ourselves through the Law is only going to bring condemnation — thus we are wretched men. [But Frank, one of my points is that he then projects that point onto sanctification].
And his text for the sermon is 1 Tim 1:5-11. “we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person” and so on [your not going to answer the question, are you?].
You are concerned that he says this much: ” if the law has done its condemning and convicting work to bring you to Christ for justification and transformation, then it is not made for you any more …”
But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: “– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.”
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message [no, he later projects the justification point onto the subject of sanctification—making the two equal]. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper [no, you are slandering me, I assume, unwittingly, because you can’t decipher Piper’s deceptive doublespeak].
Don’t do that. This is your only warning.
Turk then pulled down my posts that I copied above, which I commented on:
Frank,
The fact that you pulled my posts while only addressing the more nuanced statement by Piper is telling. The fact that neither you, nor anyone else will address Piper’s outrageous statements in Desiring God is also telling. And, I find the linguistic demeanor that suggests that posting here is some kind of privilege….well, arrogant and laughable.
That initiated this lame response from Dan Phillips:
Yeah, it’s “telling” that we have a policy of trying to keep comments on the topic of the post, which your personal hobby-horse/vendetta isn’t.
And for general edification: the position that Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se, is neither fringe nor heresy.
Obviously, my comments were on topic. Turk is the one who opened the floor to the whole “condemning Piper without grasping Piper” thing. Hobby-horse? Vendetta? I checked. Of the 218 articles posted on my blog right now, a search turned-up zero on “John Piper” that are presently posted, but I remember one that I can’t find. In fact, someone who was apparently involved in the conversation over at Pyro emailed me and complained that they couldn’t find any of my articles on Piper. What is Phillips talking about? A New Calvinist hobby-horse? Well, he would be correct about that, but you know, somebody has to tell the truth. Accolades are not the truth just because they are accolades.
Furthermore, what’s up with, “Christians are not under the law of Moses per se, but rather are under the spoken/enscripturated/heart-inscribed law of Christ per se,” Huh? What’s the difference in light of Paul telling Timothy that “all Scrpture” is profitable for making the man of God fully equipped? What Scripture equips us and which doesn’t? Nothing in the Law of Moses equips us? And as far as living by every word that comes from the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4), is it not that per se, but this per se? Does Phillips even know what he’s saying? I doubt it.
Meanwhile, Piper Koolaid Drinker extraordinaire, Mike Ricardo, said this to the reader who launched the original challenge:
You’re welcome to venture into this with Paul, but just know that he’s already ground this axe some time ago — in fact, almost a year ago to the day [this should reveal how enamored I am with the Pyro team]. This is his pet issue, and despite the lengths to which responses have gone, there seems to be no arrival in his understanding.
Add to that the fact that this post has nothing to do with Piper’s theology of Law and Gospel, but with his recent interview with Rick Warren [then why did Phillips make the opening comment that he made?].
The individual who first challenged me then typed this Extreme Anti-Berean Team statement:
Mike Riccardi,
thanks for the heads up. I should have known better. [CLICK, that was easy! Is it now any wonder why Pyro has the following that they have?]
I made this final appeal:
Frank,
I’m not too sure you guy’s KNOW my motives; forgive me if I don’t take that to the bank just yet. So, you guys have no problem with the 6 quotes from Desiring God. Ok, fair enough, but just do me one last favor; I will not even respond—I will let your answer stand as it is for your readers and will be instructed by it—as my promise not to respond should indicate. Fair enough? And besides, you did respond to it—I’m just requesting a final clarification.
First, you said:
“But you have snatched it away from the very next clause: ‘– in that sense. There may be other uses you can make of it, but that’s not what this text is about.’
In doing that, you are the one making a confusion of the sermon and of the message. And you are using that confusion to slander Dr. Piper.”
But Frank, he goes on to say: “But for the righteous – for people who have come to Christ for justification and come to Christ for the inner spiritual power to love, this role of the law is past. From now on, the place where we seek the power to love is not the law of commandments but the gospel of Christ.” How does that jive with John 17:17 and John 14:15,16? Is he not saying that as believers, we have to go through the “gospel” first before the law—and if we don’t, we are acting as if the power is in the letter of the law instead of the Spirit? And what does it mean to love through the gospel as opposed to loving through the law? What does that even mean? Our love is defined by “gospel” and not “law”? Frank, is this not a fair question? AND, the law and the gospel are for justification, but moving forward—only the gospel is applicable for sanctification? Forgive me if it is eerily similar to, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.”
Second, and lastly, and I will bother you no more:
On point 3, I cite his entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is “us”? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need “strengthening”—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, apparently, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: “Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here”;
“I know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone”
BUT then he concludes, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE with:
“I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.”
Frank, he is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need the gospel, and being “strengthened in you own strength” is the object. AND, this is an *either/or* hermeneutic that implies that it is either all God (gospel—ever read ”God is the Gospel”?) OR all “us.” But in John 14:16, which is connected to verse 15 by the conjunction “and,” (as translated by the Bible of choice according to Piper, the ESV), the Holy Spirit is called a “helper.” What is he helping us with? It’s in verse 15—loving Christ by keeping his commandments! So, how do we know when our “own efforts “ are our “own strength” instead of God’s? What’s the difference between striving to obey with the Spirit’s “help” and being strengthened by the strength God gives “according to the gospel” which also necessitates the law to condemn for justification, but now only the “gospel” apart from the law is needed?
Are these not fair questions?
Here is Turk’s gracious reply; which by the way, he later pulled down:
Going forward, “Paul” will be dealt with by the Blogger spam filter.
Frank, I’m not sure, but I have a hunch that I will get over it.
paul
New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
A Little Uptight and In the Fight
A visitor of PPT sent me a mp3 link the other day. It was a recording of The Heart of the Matter Programwith Pastor Ralph Ovadal—Ovadal pastors Pilgrims Covenant Church in Madison, Wisconsin.
Let me be clear: after researching these two churches; would I attend / join either? Answer: Yes, I would give up my NASB, Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Kutless, and Sunday jeans for SANITY. That’s what the present-day Evangelical landscape is right now—pure insanity. Most leaders whom I used to respect have certainly lost their minds. Extremism Light is looking pretty good to me right now.
That aside, the recording is a lengthy and decent evaluation of New Calvinism. In regard to their complaint along with Dr. Peter Masters that New Calvinism is worldly—that’s true by any sane person’s estimation. The pastors reiterate instances of absurd behavior by some of the more well known leaders in the movement. They also talk about well documented, over the top compromise by the who’s who of the Evangelical world, especially John MacArthur Jr. They are obviously not impressed with the stature of men—calling John Piper, “dangerous.”
Moreover, their doctrinal contentions hit the mark. They note the movement’s distortion of justification and sanctification, and Hamilton calls out the movement for being antinomian.
Here is the link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=1022101212210
paul
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
Four Reasons Why I like Rob Bell
I have heard of Rob Bell, and have a lot of info about him backlogged to read. So, I know very little about Rob; but I can tell you I already like him. How can this be? And what do I specifically like about him?
1. He’s honest: I know this because Justin Taylor and John Piper were able to make judgments about his book before it was even published. Is he a universalist? I don’t know, I haven’t read the book yet, but he apparently has no bones about being clear as to what he believes, unlike those who pass judgment on him. Indicative of New Calvinism is the nuanced / ambiguous / subjective verbiage that they call “teaching.” Whether Piper or his fawning servant, Justin Taylor, or Keller, Powlison, Tripp, Mahaney, Chan, etc., etc, add nausea, you read their books, page after page after page saying, “I know what he’s saying and what he really believes, but he’s not coming out with it completely.” In each of their books, you can find one or two definitive statements that clearly define what they believe. Apparently, my new-found friend is not like that.
2. He’s humble: I know this because unlike most New Calvinists, he’s forthcoming about what he believes; again, unlike his accusers. New Calvinists believe they are on the cutting edge of a mega Reformation. They are experts concerning the “deep things of the gospel.” But here is the key to understanding their arrogance: they don’t come right out with what they believe because most of God’s people “aren’t ready for it yet.” Do you see the arrogance in that mentality? Apparently, Rob doesn’t think he’s on a higher spiritual plane than his followers. Apparently, he’s completely forthright about what he believes and is willing to let the chips fall where they may. Apparently, to Rob, disagreement with him doesn’t equal stupidity or lack of spiritual fortitude. How else could everybody already know he is a universalist before the book is in print?
3. He’s kind and compassionate: Unlike his accusers, he obviously doesn’t think there is anything wrong with having a deep desire for everyone to be saved. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t think hope is childish. Unlike his accusers, he doesn’t equate fatalism with spiritual maturity. In “When I Don’t Desire God,” you finally put a finger on Piper’s stoic fatalism (after dieing the death of a thousand cuts) in the last chapter. Piper believes that joy cannot be obtained by laying claim to God’s promises. No, no, we can’t have that—that would be contrary to New Clavinism’s “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” To think God would do anything at all because of something we did is anathema! Like salvation, Piper believes that joy is a gift given by God (because he actually teaches that the two are synonymous) and we can’t do anything to obtain it. He pretty much says in the book that if you don’t have joy, all you can do is pray and hope God gives it to you. It doesn’t sound like my new friend Rob is up with that angle on things.
Of course, I don’t agree with universalism, but there is something worse—the merciless, haughty, mean-spirited character of New Calvinism. Point in case: The hero among New Calvinists because he excommunicated 256 parishioners for an unbiblical reason; nonattendance. Even a child can see the problem with this being a standard for church discipline. How many absences would it take to qualify someone for discipline? Twice? Four times? And how many in what time period? And where would you find such a standard in the Bible? Frankly, I find the audacity of New Calvinists to criticize Bell, over-the-top and totally disgusting. My cat usually sits on my desk and watches me blog; not today, she is on the floor puking-up hair balls—no wonder.
4. He’s courageous: He probably knew the Pope of New Calvinism was going to excommunicate him. Yes, did you hear about the tweet by Pope John the First? “Bye, bye, Rob Bell.” Am I the only one who sees the extreme arrogance in this statement? Think about it; bye, bye from what? The New Calvinist cartel? And who in the %#@& is John Piper to make that judgment? Is there anyone walking the face of the Earth that is more arrogant than John Piper?
Well Rob, get ready to join the Joel Olsteen club. That is a group of well-knowns that are considered expendable by the New Calvinist cowards. These are the group of men that they berate to demonstrate that they stand for the “truth” (gag). And don’t take it too hard my friend, Pope John Piper the First really doesn’t know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul, he only thinks he does; you can trust me on that one. And don’t be as hard on them as they are on you, after all, even whores have standards, and Justin Taylor thinks you crossed the line because that’s what John Piper thinks.
Rob, let me encourage you; I am going to buy your book, and if you are a universalist, well, I strongly disagree with that, but I wonder: what’s worse? A kind-hearted, humble, honest, couragous, universalist that knows he’s a universalist, or an arrogant antinomian that doesn’t know he’s an antinomian? Hmmmm.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
52 comments