Often Asked By Those Looking For a Church: How Do I Know If It Is New Calvinist Or Not? Important Addendum
Originally published February 7, 2012
There has been an important development for the answering of this question. Specifically, how a pastor interprets Romans 8:30 will determine whether he is New Calvinist, or not New Calvinist. This is best explained by using an excerpt from another recent post, and then I will repost the original article afterward.
As many know, especially my wife, I have spent almost five years researching the present-day New Calvinism movement. The movement has its roots in the Progressive Adventist movement fathered by Robert Brinsmead. The magnum opus of that movement was their interpretation of Romans 8:30. I will pause now and quote an individual who witnessed that remarkable movement firsthand:
In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact.
And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
“The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ” (Martin L. Carey: Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening )
Brinsmead further articulated this magnum opus in the theological journal, Present Truth:
Then in the golden chain of salvation, Romans 8:30, justification spans our Christian life all the way from calling or conversion to glorification: “Whom He called, them He justified; whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Here justification, our standing before God, is coterminous with sanctification, our being conformed to the image of God’s Son, in Romans 8:29. In 1 Corinthians 1:30 the apostle mentions Christ as our righteousness or justification before he names Him as our sanctification. But in 1 Corinthians 6:11 the order is reversed: “You are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.”
Accordingly, Luther taught that to accept justification by faith in Christ is our whole work for the whole Christian life. We never learn this too well. For the forgiveness of sins is a continuous divine work until we die. Christ saves us perpetually (Luther’s Works, American ed. (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: Concordia, 1955- ), Vol.34, pp.164, 167, 190) [Present Truth: volume 25, pages 11,12].
Now, the term, “golden chain of salvation” did not originate with Brinsmead, but when that term was used by theologians of old, it doesn’t seem to be in reference to Romans 8:30. The term seems to have a contemporary meaning when associated with Romans 8:30, and that is how it will be used in this post. Furthermore, Brinsmead attributes the magnum opus of Progressive Adventism to Martin Luther, and Carey attributes it to Brinsmead who again, states that he learned it from the writings of Luther.
But the need for further research aside, this post will focus on the what. And the what is the following:
[1] Brinsmead’s interpretation of Romans 8:30 combines justification and sanctification, and perpetuates the need for a just standing before God until glorification.
[2] And the need for a progressive justification until glorification, ie.,“Christ saves us perpetually.”
[3] And sanctification is missing from Romans 8:30 because it is “coterminous” with Justification. “Conterminous” means, 1. having the same border or covering the same Area 2. being the same in extent; coextensive in range or scope.
[4] This Romans 8:30 golden chain can be definitively traced throughout the New Calvinism community as a single mainframe that holds the doctrine together and determines its modus operandi.
[5] The Romans 8:30 golden chain manifests itself as, Gospel Sanctification, Sonship Theology, New Covenant Theology, and Christian Hedonism which all dwell in the community of New Calvinism.
Hence, New Calvinists can run, but they can’t hide—their interpretation of Romans 8:30 identifies them. And it also identifies what they will teach, and how they will counsel.
The Two Romans 8:30 and Their Gospels
Therefore, one version of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are the same, and justification is perpetual till glorification. The second interpretation of Romans 8:30 suggests that sanctification is missing from the verse because justification and sanctification are completely separate; and justification is a finished work that makes sanctification possible, but does not directly power it. This position would hold that sanctification is powered by regeneration, and not justification. Hence, Romans 8:30 is missing sanctification because justification is a finished work that guarantees glorification.
These are two completely different gospels. One is monergistic substitutionary sanctification, and the other is monergistic justification and synergistic sanctification. How the gospel is presented from each of these different viewpoints must necessarily be radically different. Moreover, counseling is necessarily, and radically different as well.
New Calvinism is not only dangerous to one’s soul, it is very subtle, and its proponents are deliberately covert. A post on what to look for is overdue, and my thanks to the reader who wrote and reminded me of this need. First, know this: in our day, New Calvinist churches will be the rule and not the exception. When you visit a church, assume that it is in the process of being taken over by New Calvinists, or has been in that camp completely for a period of time. Churches that have been solidly New Calvinist for a number of years will have cult-like characteristics.
Now, let me first begin my list by specifically answering the readers question and then I will expand from there: “….and would like to have a few questions to ask a Pastor to be able to know for sure if he is or is not in the NC camp by how the questions are answered. At the top of your head what questions would you recommend be asked that would be very telling?”
1) The biggie: “What hermeneutic do you use when you are preaching? Do you use the grammatical historical hermeneutic, or the redemptive historical hermeneutic?” Whether the pastor is NC or not, a deer in the headlight look will follow because most parishioners of our day do not know any theology. Think about it for a moment. These are two very different ways of approaching the Bible with the results being radically different; but yet, 99% of the parishioners out there have no idea which one their pastor uses.
GHH seeks to be exegetic; all ideas about everything are drawn from the text. RHH has an eisegetic approach; the sole purpose of the Bible is to gain a deeper understanding of Christ. It is sometimes called the “Chrstocentric” hermeneutic.
If the pastor admits that he is RHH, he is a NC. If he becomes aloof, for example; “Well, why don’t you come and see what we are about at one of our services, and then if you still want to talk about theology, we can do that” (by the way, that’s an actual quote from a pastor in response to my question concerning his hermeneutics), he is suspect. If he claims to be both, he is also suspect. If he is NC, he will know the very second you asked that question that he does not want you in his church.
2) Ask him who his favorite teachers are (you may want to word the question in a different way). If aloofness follows, he is suspect. If his favorite teachers are the likes of John Piper et al, he is either undiscerning or NC. In other words, he’s suspect.
3) You can ask him about his view on obedience, but you have to ask it this way in order not to be roper-doped: “Does all legitimate obedience and duty come out of a deeper understanding of our salvation? And when it does, is it a ‘mere natural flow?’”
4) “Do you believe that we are sanctified (set apart) by contemplating the gospel that saved us, or colaboring with the Holy Spirit in applying the word to our life.”
Bottom line: a skilled NC pastor can get around all of these questions except question number one. Even then, he can claim that he uses both hermeneutics.
Things to Look For
5) Is everything going on in the church about the gospel and Jesus? Is all of the music about redemption? Are all the messages about salvation, even though it’s a Christian setting? Is God the Father and the Holy Spirit rarely mentioned?
6) Another biggie: The missing transition communication technique in teaching and conversation. Like number one, this is huge. A message will begin with the subject of our Christian walk, but then will move into the subject of salvation without a transition in subject, as if the two are the same thing. Really, number one and number six are the most significant answers to the reader’s question.
7) The either/or communication technique, or the missing option C communication technique. The classic example is this prayer I heard spoken by a New Calvinist elder: “Lord, forgive us for obeying you in our own efforts.” The prayer insinuates that it’s either all of our effort, or all of something else that we don’t need forgiveness for. New Calvinists use this communication technique over a wide spectrum of teachings.
The Danger Zone
8.) Don’t forget, New Calvinist elders believe they have authority over you if you are a professing Christian and you are in their neck of the woods. Never, never, never, never meet with an elder or a group of elders ALONE. Never. And document everything. If you find yourself trying to ascertain where a church is doctrinally, and things are getting uncomfortable—that’s a New Calvinist church, or a cult, one or the other. Also, in this type of situation in a NC church, they consider these meetings to be steps of Matthew 18. They also consider any type of formal or informal counseling to be part of the discipline process. Regardless of whether you are a member or not, they will formally excommunicate you from the church universal in a Sunday morning service. And by the way, you have no legal grounds for a lawsuit in any state. Please, please, avoid these situations.
9) Watch for signs of exclusiveness; such as, “We preach the scandalous gospel,” ect. Or, “We teach this, as opposed to the ‘vast majority’ of other Christian churches.” “This is what makes us unique.” If you hear verbiage like this, gather your family and run for the nearest exit door. And don’t look back.
10) Watch out for love bombing. An overemphasis on love usually replaces things that are missing—like TRUTH! True loving relationships, even among Christians, are developed over time.
Also, in a NC church, if you are thought to be discerning, you may be approached by an elder with an unsolicited offer to “disciple” you on a weekly basis. This is more than likely for the purpose of neutralizing you as a threat. In many NC churches, this is considered counseling/discipline whether you are aware of it or not. It is known as “redemptive church discipline.” The goal is to bring you to a “redemptive” view of sanctification.
paul
Why Non-Institutional “Church Discipline” is Very Unmessy
In most states, to tell someone under threat of public humiliation that they can’t do something legal, such as vacating church membership, is a criminal act. This is especially true of the institutional church.
Why? Because the institutional church has its roots in Europe where church states were common. In many cases, church membership was mandatory. Keep in mind; in many Reformed churches the Calvin Institutes are the standard of polity, but it was written under the auspices of and in context of a church state.
Hence, institutional “church disciple” often conflicts with laws in a free society. This is why institutional churches spend millions of dollars each year covering their sanctified rumps in regard to this issue…and it is money spent for no good reason at all.
First of all, the legal problems begin with orthodoxy that calls for a “tell it to the church” for purposes of shunning and declaring the person an unbeliever. The whole declaring people unbelievers thing goes back to the orthodoxy of Calvin’s “Power of the Keys.” This is the belief that whatever Reformed elders proclaim on earth will be true in heaven. Basically, even if you are saved, if an elder wants to unsave you, heaven is bound by his authority. The Reformed can throw their little temper tantrums in denial if they want to, but this is a fact, and many who read here at PPT can bring their own testimonies to bear on that. Besides, the Calvin Institutes stake this claim in no uncertain terms.
Secondly, “tell it to the church” was NEVER meant to be an announcement to the congregation that the elders have decided to “excommunicate” a certain person. It is a call to the whole assembly to get involved in the situation so that EVERBODY is accountable and the true facts of the matter are totally out in the open. In fact, the offended and the first two witnesses may have to stand alone against the whole assembly in some cases:
“Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst of them.”
Thirdly, we see “the Lord’s discipline” in the Bible, and we see self-discipline in the Bible, but where is “church discipline”? Answer: NOWHERE. The church does not discipline, assemblies are a matter of voluntary fellowship, period. If the whole assembly cannot convince the offender to make things right, they simply refuse to fellowship with the offender until he/she repents—it’s just that simple.
Fourthly, per the usual, this should all be interpreted through the prism of home fellowships, not the institutional church with all its necessary legal drama. Said offender is no longer welcome in the home of the host where the meetings take place. In extreme cases, restraining orders in regard to an institution are very messy, but not when it comes to private homes.
In addition, if the home fellowship wrongly stands with the offender for various immature reasons, guess what? The three merely go off and start their own home fellowship. Who is with them?
See how simple this all is? It’s the institution that complicates all of this.
Lastly, it’s not a matter of humiliating someone publically via the institution’s public building—that obviously beckons a host of legal issues. It is a simple matter of discontinuing fellowship until the offender makes things right.
Moreover, in regard to a network of home fellowships in a given geography, a wronged person could appeal to other fellowships. Where there can be no agreement, you may have an actual split in networks as well. But the whole thing is based on fellowship—not authority or a public institution where things become legal issues.
paul
Tullian Tchividjian: Why People are Attracted to Christianity; We are Evil Just Like Them
How shocking that there is so much evil in the institutional church in the name of Christ. Gee, I can’t imagine why.
Paul Washer Video Indicative of Why TANC is Here
In the following video, Paul Washer seemingly makes an ironclad argument for the preselection of those who will be saved and eternally damned to a seminary student searching for the truth. And that’s what is sad, God’s people are poorly equipped to give these guys a run for their money. And that is why we are here.
The way Washer sets the agenda for an assured outcome is classic. Notice how Washer lets this guy assume, for now, that total depravity only pertains to the unsaved. To bring the conversation to the ability or non-ability of the regenerate according to Calvinist orthodoxy would put Washer under a whole other set of lights. I would pay hard cash to see a video where someone asks Washer, “Ok, I get it, but are Christians also totally depraved?”
Also, these guys always get a free pass on making election the gospel. The day will come when someone says: “Let’s talk about your view on justification, and if that passes biblical muster, I will consider your view on election. I would hate to think that your view on election is based on a false gospel.”
Calvinist Paul Washer: Christianity is Perpetual Death and Rebirth
In the following short clip, Paul Washer expounds on Reformed orthodox’s definition of the new birth: the Christian, which remains dead in trespasses and sin, experiences perpetual rebirth under the preaching of preordained prophets of God. This doctrine known as mortification and vivification, or “deep repentance/new obedience,” is well articulated in the Calvin Institutes and is formal Reformed orthodoxy. Hence, when will discernment bloggers say enough is enough and stop playing footsies with “old Calvinism.” No part of a false gospel will heal. Facts used in the commission of a false gospel will not heal. Why is this so hard to understand?
And just in case you need more convincing, consider this excerpt from Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity,” p. 189ff:
God gathers his people together in a covenantal event to judge and to justify, to kill and to make alive. The emphasis is on God’s work for us – the Father’s gracious plan, the Son’s saving life, death, and resurrection, and the Spirit’s work of bringing life to the valley of dry bones through the proclamation of Christ. The preaching focuses on God’s work in the history of redemption from Genesis through Revelation, and sinners are swept into this unfolding drama. Trained and ordained to mine the riches of Scripture for the benefit of God’s people, ministers try to push their own agendas, opinions, and personalities to the background so that God’s Word will be clearly proclaimed. In this preaching the people once again are simply receivers – recipients of grace. Similarly, in baptism, they do not baptize themselves; they are baptized. In the Lord’s Supper, they do not prepare and cook the meal; they do not contribute to the fare; but they are guests who simply enjoy the bread of heaven.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment