Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 1
“RL” is a New Calvinist and author. I am pleased to have this clarifying dialogue with him. I was going to write a review of a book he wrote on marriage which would have included some sensitive information. While obtaining his side of the story, which I believe to be the true side, an ability to work together in distinguishing doctrinal views was exhibited. Not only that, I have grown to like him personally. Why? Because he tells it like he sees it. Of course, it’s no secret that I disdain New Calvinist doctrine, but what I disdain more is nuanced doublespeak concerning doctrine. For crying out loud, if that’s what you believe—state it and let the chips fall where they may. No doubt, if I believe someone is trying to trick others into believing what they believe, it does become personal—I can’t respect that.
Here is what RL agreed to:
“Thanks. Actually I would like to just have an open discussion on marriage so that you can present the New Calvinist side. Q and A format. It would be posted on my blog–and I am primarily interested in a clear presentation of the New Calvinist side. You would then be welcome to address any comments that come in.”
Well, while we are at it, let’s just take this opportunity to learn more about New Calvinism. I look forward to several productive parts:
Q: Do you consider yourself to be a “New Calvinist”?
New Calvinism(ist) (hereafter NC) could be a very broad term. It’s sort of like saying,
“Are you reformed?” To some, that can speak of paedo-baptist practices; to some it is
soteriological, to some it is non-dispensational, etc. Can we get a working definition
of the NC concept and then go from there?
Q: Yes, one that would associate themselves with T4G, TGC, SGM and their general
tenants such as “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you”–ie., gospel-
driven this and gospel-centered that. Then we can cover some other specific tenets
from there.
Yes. I do believe the gospel that saves, also sanctifies. However, to suggest that the
term gospel is strictly limited to the doctrine of justification alone would be a
misnomer. Contextually, sometimes the term “gospel” refers to a God centered
perspective on the Christian life.
The gospel is a God centered declaration of both His glory and grace. Hence, because
of the “amazing grace” there is a sense of gratitude that compels/motivates our
sanctification. Simultaneously, because of the concurrent experience of glorifying
God, there is an inexpressible joy that also compels/motivates our sanctification.
“NC’s” are motivated by both glory and grace.
Q: So how is this experienced? Say I believe the NC package. Let’s say you are discipling
me day one. Where do I go from here?
Depending on the age, of course, of the individual, there is obviously a
contextualization discernment made as to where to begin. But, for argument’s sake,
we’ll say our new convert is 25 years old.
Initially, we’d direct them to begin reading Scripture (allowing the HS to renew their
mind before we begin to “reform” them) to begin familiarizing themselves with God.
Much along the lines of how Calvin puts things, “We must first know and understand
who and what God is before we can truly begin to know anything about ourselves…”
That being said, much of the confidence of the NC would derive from the perspicuity of
Scripture, as our new convert begins to read the story of redemption and allow the HS
to begin to teach him. Law and Gospel, we would say, underlies the believer’s new
life.
For some new believers, the realization of the necessity of regeneration is something
that is seen/learned, sooner than others. Such is why all Calvinists stress the theological
and sanctifying importance of how the Holy Spirit has overcome our depravity and, as
Jonathan Edwards penned so eloquently, “liberated the will” to once again please God.
Hence, there is an immense measure of grace that fuels the believer’s obedience once
they understand how enslaved they once were to their sin.
From there, we proceed to train/instruct the new believer as to how to go about living the
Christian life. We would explain to them that the Christian life is not about learning an
endless list of “do’s and don’ts” in order to gain “justifying” favor with God. Our
foundational emphasis for empowering the believer stems from the finished work of
Christ that has been applied to his life, that there is no longer any further “good works”
that are required in order to be justified. His sanctification, we would say, is being
empowered by the Gospel of glory and grace; of what God has done on his behalf and
the joy found in pleasing God.
The question then becomes, what must a Christian do in order to please God? Answer:
Find joy in Holiness. How is holiness defined? God’s word, as it becomes a reflection
of who and what God is. It is for holiness’ sake that we have been set free from our sin,
why we were justified, why we are sanctified and why, ultimately, God will glorify his
people. God has an undeniable prefixation with our being conformed into the image of
Christ, who is perfectly holy, something we have been destined to reflect for the rest of
eternity, beginning as soon as we have been justified sola fide.
That last answer covers some serious territory. Will resume with some questions tomorrow.
paul
Posted on My Facebook Wall by New Day Christian Ministries
Paul Dohse on New Calvinism. Paul is the Sheppard dog.
Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification: Part 2
Dear visitor,
Your follow-up “questions” are copied below but I have decided to cut to the quick on this one. Along with another event that has transpired while working on the upcoming book, your correspondence has incited me to go ahead and address an issue regarding New Calvinism that I was going to address in the next volume.
Not only is New Calvinism the doctrine of the Australian Forum (COG), but Brinsmead’s doctrine was Reformed theology mixed with SDA theology; primarily, the Investigative Judgment. This taught that Justification had to be ongoing or God’s declaration that we are just is mere legal fiction. For years, SDA followers were in bondage to a system that required them to be fit for an upcoming judgment and found just according to the standard of the law.
After being influenced by an Anglican named Geoffrey Paxton, Brinsmead started the “Awakening” movement which taught that we stand in the judgment clothed with the righteousness of Christ and not our own. This was truly good news to the SDA folks. Only problem is, Christians don’t look toward a judgment, we have already been declared righteous; we look for glorification. However, your same concern with an ongoing justification can be seen clearly in your questions. The Forum’s COG (centrality of the objective gospel), like SDA theology, taught that sanctification was an ongoing higher state of justification, a progressive justification—just as New Calvinism teaches.
Therefore, I reject the premise of your questions and the either/or hermeneutic that is a necessity to employ because of your aforementioned views. This can be seen in the following statement:
“You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?”
Note that you consider our work in sanctification/regeneration as a justification issue. But according to orthodox Christianity, our work in sanctification has nothing to do with obtaining justification—that’s a once and for all-time done deal. Therefore, SDA influence can be clearly seen in COG theology and New Calvinism as well.
Furthermore, like the Forum, New Calvinism has a problem with infused righteousness/grace because that is seen as saying God enables us to participate in being justified. Again, a false concept of progressive justification and the synthesis of justification and sanctification is in view here. But clearly, based on 1John 3:9, there is an infusion of righteousness:
“No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.”
God’s righteous seed is not only in us, but it results in a new birth. Why this does not result in a perfect righteousness in the here and now can be ascertained by examining 1John as a whole and John 13.
Moreover, your condescending and subtle form of abuse can be seen in your correspondence as well, and is a primary reason that I am devoted to “The Truth About New Calvinism.” New Calvinist elders perpetrate this type of abuse (and worse) on parishioners daily. News of it is reported to this ministry often.
paul
Thank you for your answers to these questions, I hope you don’t mind if I ask a few more questions prompted by your answers. On question #1, you are correct. This is directly related to limited atonement thought I would prefer to refer to this doctrine as definite atonement or particular redemption. I am not sure why you don’t know know how to answer the question. It seems to me, Jesus either accomplished redemption, justification, propitiation, and reconciliation for his elect people or he didn’t. My question to you is whether there is an objective accomplishment of those works or not? Perhaps a better way to ask the question is do the Scriptures refer to that work as an accomplishment or a mere provision for anyone who might take advantage of it by faith but that didn’t accomplish these blessings for anyone in particular?
I agree that the Father and the Spirit cannot be excluded when we talk about the work of redemption but Jesus is the redeemer in terms of his sacrifice. Given that no sinner will be justified apart from faith, my question is whether that faith, even faith given by God, forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification.
You speak of God granting us faith but what relation does that gift have to the work of regeneration?
You seem to say that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is difficult to find in Scripture. Is that really what you intended to say?
You don’t seem to like the idea of either/or but isn’t it true that we are either completely justified by God’s work of redemption or at least partially by our works?
I hope you understand what I am asking. Thank you again for your answers.
Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification
1. Do you believe the accomplishments of the cross are complete and whole without the sinner’s reception of them?
It seems to me this is getting into the limited atonement issue, and my answer on that is: I don’t know. Past that, what particular accomplishments are you speaking of?
2. Is it the work of Christ alone that justifies sinners through faith, or the sinner’s faith in the work of Christ that justifies?
First of all, I reject the either/or premise of the question. Christ does NOT work ALONE in salvation/justification. There is NO salvation without the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.
I also reject the either/or premise of ALL Christ or ALL our faith. It’s both. BUT, our faith is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29)—no gift, no faith, but after the gift is given—it is our faith. SO, it’s BOTH.
3. Does God regenerate sinners when they believe, or do sinners believe when God regenerates them (I am speaking causally not temporally)?
God first gives them the gift of faith—then they believe; again, Phil. 1:29.
4. Do you believe God imputes the perfect obedience of Christ to sinners and, on that basis, declares them to be righteous in his sight, or does he infuse grace to sinners in regeneration which in turn forms at least part of the basis of their justification? Is seems to me what Piper is saying is that the basis of justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner,
regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying? Justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner, namely, regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying?
Again, I reject the either/or premise of the question which is classic John Piper hermeneutics. The declaration HAS to be based on either imputed righteousness or infused righteousness/grace. In other words, all that is happening is justification imputed
or justification infused. What’s happening in us HAS to be justification related and the GROUND of justification.
If you really want to get into this deeply, the Forum, like Piper, says that everything MUST BE either the fruit of justification or the ground (root) of justification. Another either/or hermeneutic that has to see everything through justification. They would then answer your question 5 with an empathic “yes!” BUT only in regard to the new birth/regeneration being the fruit of ongoing/progressive justification. Any teaching that states that the new birth enables us to take part in spiritual growth is considered works righteousness because it “makes the fruit the root.” This is because in the Forum/New Calvinist doctrine, the declaration of righteousness isn’t enough to guarantee glorification, we must be declared righteous, produce perfect righteousness, and be found righteous in the end (eerily similar to SDA theology). Therefore, the only way this can be done is to devise a way in which the righteousness of Christ is presented for sanctification as well.
The concern of the Forum/New Calvinists is that God is saying we are righteous, when really we aren’t. So, somehow, a perfect righteousness has to be ongoing. Problem is, this excludes the law from us in regard to obedience because we are obviously unable to keep it perfectly. This all sounds logical until you need to come up with a system that doesn’t appear to be let go and let God theology or blatant antinomianism.
I’m not going to write a book here, orthodoxy appeals to 1John to answer what New Calvinists and the Forum propagate.
Piper’s right, justification is a legal declaration outside of us, but justification is not a singular prism that defines the entire salvation process. This all smells like SDA investigative theology, but I am withholding judgment on that till volume 2.
Secondly, Scripture regarding righteousness declared by God and based on faith is everywhere in the Bible, but one has to dig hard to make a case for the imputed righteousness of Christ in-particular. Why does Piper have to make this such a huuuuge issue? Hmmmm. Whatever righteousness is credited to our account is enough to get the job done. But I can tell you that I reject double imputation out of hand, but thouroughly understand why New Calvinists need it in order to make everything work.
5. Do you think it is possible to place great emphasis on the objective reality of the sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work for the sinner’s justification without denying the reality and importance of regeneration?
It’s a mute point. How much we are to emphasize the gospel that saved us is described in the Bible. One way is the Lord’s Table. But be sure of this: a singular focus on justification as a means of spiritual growth is classic antinomianism.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
55 comments