Rick Holland’s ‘Uneclipsing The Son,” Part 2: Mr. Holland’s Motives
“Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged.”
“In speaking of this condition: ‘helpless’; ‘ungodly sinners’; ‘unable to seek God’; ‘dead’; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English Composition. Of course, that is very unlikely.”
I am often asked what I think the motives of New Calvinists are. Is their deception deliberate? Do they really believe this stuff themselves, or are they deceived? Do they just want to sell books? Once again, I was asked this question yesterday by our assistant youth director. I told him that for the most part I don’t know, but apart from the fact that I am indifferent to why people do things (my primary concern is truth verses error), I can understand the curiosity. After all, motive is a standard of proof in a court of law—so I guess it’s important. So, I did offer him some motives that I am sure play a part in the deception, but as I was reading further in Mr. Holland’s opus, the grand motive of New Calvinism hit me between the eyes. Hence, I will add this motive to David and my conversation via this post. First what I shared, then the grand motive.
Infatuation With Novelty
There are many who are simply dissatisfied with the beaten path of our forefathers. They always have to have something new going on. I have seen this clearly in New Calvinist elders that I have known personally.
The Need To Be “Unique”
I will never forget the introduction I heard from an elder who was introducing a Sunday School series on John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism.” His introduction began this way: “This is what makes us unique.” I remember thinking immediately: “Why is it their goal to be unique?” Some leaders are always looking for a niche doctrine that sets them apart from other ministries—this is not only a sign of spiritual immaturity, but very dangerous.
The Need To Be Accepted In Powerful Circles Of Influence
Simply stated: a lust to be among the who’s who of admired theologians. The brave spirit of Athanasius and his rousing epitaph, “Athanasius contra mundum” (Athanasius against the world) is far away from the spirit of this age. It reminds me of some Amway conferences I used to go to with a friend some years ago. To be one of the who’s who of the Amway elite was definitely one of the motivations for excelling in the organization. Likewise, pastors clamor to be invited to speak at T4G, The Gospel Coalition conferences, etc. while others are punished by no longer receiving invitations for not towing the New Calvinist line. Shockingly, Holland openly admits in the Acknowledgments of his opus that the work is the product of “a year” of conversations with “people” who “sharpened and clarified” his thinking in regard to the “exclusivity of Christ’s supremacy in all things” (an Australian Forum buzz-phrase). He further states that the book is the “product of those friendships.” Indeed, I’m sure it is.
The Grand Motive: Spiritual Elitism
This is the mentality that leaders possess a unique ability to understand the deep things of God that the sheep don’t possess. I have experienced this mentality firsthand from notable New Calvinists; today’s Evangelical sheep are “not ready” for the “deep, hard truth” that the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and to move on to “anything else” will cause the “loss of both.” They see themselves as being on the cutting edge of the completion of the Reformation that Martin Luther began. The movement is smitten with a visions of grandeur epidemic.
Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged. They, I’m sure, condone this by possessing an arrogant mentality that supposedly knows that “hard truth” must be spoon-fed to the sheep until they are “ready” to accept it. The supposed hard truth is the idea that there is no difference between justification and sanctification. And since everything must be interpreted through the gospel, rules of English composition are out the window. Literally, no pun intended. They use Scripture that pertains to the unregenerate to speak of the Christian’s present condition. This shouldn’t surprise us if they think Christians need the gospel everyday, right? Like John Piper, Holland pathetically uses the same technique in his opus on pages 18-20. Before I note what he does there, let me share an excerpt from a note I wrote to a devout follower of John Piper:
“On point 3, I cite his [Piper’s] 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, 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 [Piper] 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 continues, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE without any transitional phrase:
‘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.’
He is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need salvation. Remember, the title of the message is God Strengthens us by the Gospel, and being ‘strengthened in you own strength’ can only be connected with the previous subject if there is no grammatical transition.”
Holland does the exact same thing in the aforementioned pages. On page 18, he uses Romans 5 to say that God “obhor[s], us” [who is “us”?] and, “How can we [who are “we”?] be reconciled to him?” Again, if “we” need the gospel everyday, “we” need to be in the same condition/position as unbelievers, right? He is a Christian author writing to a Christian audience—one can only assume the personal pronouns that include him (we, us, etc.) are speaking of himself and Christians—not himself and unbelievers in a mankind sense. Certainly, sloppy composition cannot be assumed here as Holland is Director DMin studies at Master’s Seminary. Furthermore, in the sentence immediately afterword, he states the following:
“The answer [the answer to what? This MUST refer to the previous sentences that say “we,” and “us” are loathed by God and need to be reconciled to him] to that question [specifically, “How can we be reconciled to Him?”] is the greatness of the gospel , and the gospel is the only way to remove any and every obstacle obscuring the blazing glory of Jesus Christ. It’s our [who does “our” refer to?] hope for living in His fullness [is that not a Christian / sanctification issue? But yet, this line of thought is clearly connected to a description of the unregenerate and connected with “The answer to that question….”].
Page 19 is further devoted to describing the spiritual condition of the unregenerate using personal pronouns that identifies himself as the writer and his presumed Christian audience—with the exception of one sentence that speaks of this condition in the PAST tense. In speaking of this condition: “helpless”; “ungodly sinners”; “unable to seek God”; “dead”; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English composition. On page 20, he continues to describe our spiritual condition in both the present and past tense, but only using descriptions of the unregenerate for both. Again, grammatically, one must assume that he is making no distinction. Moreover, in quoting Romans 5:6 to make his point, Holland actually replaces the word “ungodly” with “us” in brackets. The only way any of this can make sense is through an assumption that there is no distinction between the saved and unregenerate.
Trying to sort this deception out is difficult and annoying, and I do think the technique is used deliberately. If you think about it, if someone doesn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification to begin with—this idea would be assimilated into to their thinking by assumption. And, what of an unbeliever reading this? Would that be the gospel? The gospel is the good news that we are just as spiritually dead now as we have always been? I don’t think so.
paul
A Passing Thought: How John MacArthur Helps Me Get Closer To Christ
“Notable evangelicals continue to build years of trust among the laity, seemingly, if you didn’t know better, for the purpose of a grand disillusionment. However, with each one that contradicts their own supposed convictions they sold you in book form, the pain gives way to the sweetness of knowing that Christ will never let us down in that way.”
Excerpt: http://wp.me/pmd7S-x1
New Covenant Theology’s Top Ten
A New Covenant Theology advocate submitted these questions to PPT. They are good questions and well organized. I respond to each following:
1. Do the Scriptures describe the 10 Commandments as a covenant, namely, the national covenant God made with Israel? (Exo. 34:28).
No. The Scriptures do not describe those commandments as a “national covenant.” It’s a covenant made for a covenant people. Israel was a theocracy and it is not advisable to form covenant theologies by making a minor point major. Israel was not foremost a nation, they were foremost God’s people. However, if you want to make national Israel a major tenet of some theology; for example NCT, see Jeremiah 31:35,36.
2. To what does the Apostle Paul refer when he writes about the “ministry of death engraven in stones” (2 Cor. 3:7)?
Paul is referring to one of the ministries of the law, which in this case is the law’s only solution for sin: death. That particular ministry of the law was abolished by Christ for those who believe in Him. Obviously, the law has other ministries. See Psalm 119.
3. Does he seem to suggest that the new covenant of which he is a minister is inferior or superior to that ministry of death written in stones?
Neither. Paul says that the NC has more glory, but speaks to the glory that the other covenant also possessed: “If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!” That doesn’t mean the law is not a measure of righteousness, it means the law can’t impute righteousness to the individual, only Christ can do that. The atonement abolishes the law’s ministry of death, but that doesn’t mean all other ministry’s of the law are abolished also.
4. What does Paul say is happening to that ministry of death/national covenant made with Israel?
Again, I reject the premise of a “national covenant.” BUT in agreement with you, the ministry of death has most definitely been abolished. Another solution for sin has been found in Jesus Christ. BUT, that doesn’t mean that EVERY ministry of the law has been abolished!
5. Is the covenant God made with Israel identical with the Old Testament Scriptures? If the two are not identical (and they are not) is it not possible to live under a New Covenant without denying the value and validity of the Old Testament Scriptures?
The covenants are elements of the Old Testament Scriptures—I reject a theological dichotomy between the two. For example, James preached the same thing Paul did regardless of the fact that the book of James almost didn’t make it into the NT canon because of James’ strong emphasis on imperatives. Furthermore, “value and validity [in regard to what?]” doesn’t equal: learn and apply.
6. Where is the passage in the New Testament Scriptures that gives the slightest indication that the New Covenant believer is to look to the Ten Commandments as his standard of sanctification? It would be helpful in proving your contention if only the Apostle had written, “He who loves his fellowman WILL FULFILL the law (Rom. 8:13). The problem is he didn’t. He wrote, “He who loves. . .HAS FULFILLED THE LAW.” The New Testament Scriptures do a superb job of defining for us what it is like to love our fellowman, thus preventing us from turning love into lust and licentiousness.
Again, I reject your premise that the “Ten Commandments (a term not used in Scripture)” is somehow a separate entity apart from the rest of Scripture. Did Exodus 20 come from God’s mouth? Then we live by it: Matthew 4:4. NCT theologians have to make that dichotomy because of what Paul said to Timothy in 3:16 regarding ALL Scripture being profitable for EVERY good work. But throughout the Bible, “law” and “Scripture” are used interchangeably. This can be seen clearly in Galatians 4:21-31 where Paul wrote: “Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says?” He then cites Genesis 21 and Isaiah 54 to make his points. It’s all “the law.” Furthermore, I totally reject the idea that all of the law has been replaced with a single law of love. Paul was eluding to the fact that selfism is the essence of sin, and loving others as much as we already love ourselves captures the essence of the law. In other words, we follow the law in-spite of ourselves. Scripture is clearly the standard for what love is. See 1Corinthians 13. For instance, if not for the law, we wouldn’t know that love “doesn’t keep a record of wrong.”
7. If a person believes New Covenant believers are under the law of Christ and that Christ’s law expresses the same eternal, and immutable righteous standard as that reflected in the 10 Commandments, he can’t really be considered as being against law (antinomian) can he?
Yes. Because the issue is not only what one thinks of the law, but also what he believes in regard to the application of it. NCT praises the law while rejecting the biblically prescribed application to life.
8. Is the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life sufficiently effective to accomplish the work of sanctification according to the New Testament standard?
I suspect the point of this question is to establish the idea that Evangelicals think the Holy Spirit needs our help in sanctification. This is the GS either/or hermeneutic. It’s either ALL law or ALL gospel; either ALL the Holy Spirit, or ALL us. Of course the Spirit is all sufficient, but guess what? If we don’t do anything—nothing’s going to happen. The Holy Spirit is our “helper.” So, what’s a “helper?”
9. If the Sabbath observance is the sign of the covenant God made with Israel (see-Exodus 31:17), would it not be temporally coextensive with the covenant of which it was the sign? In other words, would not the Sabbath observance endure only as long as the covenant endured? Now, if that covenant has become antiquated by the establishment of the new and everlasting covenant, and the New Testament Scriptures provide abundant evidence that it has now been thus replaced, would it not make sense that God’s new covenant people are not now under the sign of a covenant that does not belong to them?
The passage you cite says it is a sign “forever.” So, God didn’t know at the time that he was going to replace it? But 31:13 states that it is also a sign that God has set them apart for His use. Hence, one reason for the law and the importance thereof: it is a sign that we are set apart. That’s just as important today as it was then. Another practical application of this law is the following:
”But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do” (Deuteronomy 5:14).
The law guaranteed a day of rest for slaves and servants. Deuteronomy is full of rules that were designed to guide masters in compassionate and fair treatment of slaves and women. Though the application for today might differ—the principles are the same. One might also note that there are between 600 and 700 imperatives in the OT while the NT has between 1000 and 1100 imperatives.
10. Are today’s believers under the old covenant or the new covenant? If under the old covenant, why does the Apostle Paul write that he is a minister of the new covenant (2Cor. 3:6). If the covenant Paul is talking about is the ministry of death/condemnation written on tablets of stone, the 10 commandments, what does that tell us about the believers relationship to the 10 commandments?
Again, we see the incorrect premise of the either/or hermeneutic. It’s either ALL the old covenant or ALL the new covenant. The law’s ministry of death is abolished while its promises and ministry of blessings are clearly still active (Ephesians 6:1-3). Also, Paul wrote to the Galatians that the law was added “because of transgressions.” This speaks of the law’s purpose to restrain sin in general and instruct believers in regard to kingdom living. Also, “under the….” in regard to what? Justification or sanctification? No, NC believers are not “under” the law for justification, but does the law still serve to set us apart from the world as a sign that we are God’s covenant people? Absolutely.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the “covenants of promise [plural]” seem to build on each other while certain elements are no longer needed. Ephesians 2:12 seems to indicate this as Paul includes them in a description of being in a state of salvation. Moreover, the New Covenant is made with Israel specifically, and even if you want to make Israel the church, the New Covenant is clearly not fully consummated:
“’This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,’ declares the LORD. ’I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 31:33-34).
The time when people will no longer need to be taught about God because God will write the law on their hearts Himself rather than our participation thereof (Proverbs 3:3, 7:3) is clearly not here yet—we still need to be taught. The need for knowledge has not yet passed away (1Cor 13:8). Notice also the correlation between knowing God and the law. Though love is a constant foundation to the law, the need to have knowledge of the law has clearly not yet passed.
paul
Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son,” Part 1: John MacArthur Comes Completely Out of the Closet
“This is the road now traveled by MacArthur: unlike his preaching of the past, but like other Gospel Sanctification advocates, his preaching will now raise more questions than are answered….”
“I am unmoved by MacArthur’s self-delusions and his musings concerning the ever-morphing neo-Calvinist novelties of our day. Peter said that though he and others witnessed the miracles of that age—the testimony of Scripture is more sure, and Gospel Sanctification does not align with the plain sense of Holy writ.”
“Also, note that he says that we don’t even want to eclipse Christ ‘partially.’ This is like the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel which led them to relegate the new birth to a position of insignificance because it involves a focus on us (subjective), and away from Christ / gospel (objective), and therefore ‘eclipses Christ.’”
July 6, 2011 is a day that will live in infamy for the rest of my life. I’m not kidding. My copy of “Uneclipsing The Son” by Rick Holland arrived two days ago and was on my desk. Susan came and sat in a chair by my desk, observed the book, picked it up, and started reading to me the forward written by John MacArthur Jr. My worst fears were realized. MacArthur’s forward to the book is a clear, concise, mini-treatise that promotes Gospel Sanctification in no uncertain terms. He is now totally out of the closet. As the name, “Gospel Sanctification” indicates, we are supposedly sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. In other words, our spiritual growth flows from a contemplation on Christ’s personhood (whatever that means exactly) and His works. Therefore, the sole purpose of the Scriptures is to gain a deeper and deeper knowledge of Christ and His works with everything else in Scripture being a mere picture or description of what Christ has fulfilled for us. One might say that it is a hyper-Calvinistic view of monergism in justification that is also projected onto sanctification. So, if one carries the doctrine to its logical conclusion, the primary, if not sole duty in the Christian life is meditating on Christ and His works which results in the Holy Spirit elevating us to higher and higher levels of sanctification. In fact, MacArthur all but writes exactly that in the forward to Holland’s book.
First, Some Historical Background
This is not the first time in church history that contemplative spirituality using the gospel as the object has been propagated. However, what makes Gospel Sanctification unique is its unified systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification has a theory regarding a favorable method of interpreting the Scriptures, a supposed practical application, an explanation of how it is experienced emotionally, its own eschatology, and a covenant theology. More than likely, Gospel Sanctification as we know it today was conceived by Robert Brinsmead and his Australian Forum project. The clear mandate of that project was to systematize a theology that was gospel-centered sanctification. One of the concepts created by the project was the centrality of the objective gospel. It went so far as to indicate that all reality is interpreted through the gospel (objective), and anything given more priority than the gospel (subjective) was to “eclipse the Son.” The Forum’s writings are saturated with descriptions of various woes that come from “eclipsing” Christ and the gospel. Robert Brinsmead worked closely with Jon Zens (the father of New Covenant Theology) in developing the same kind of theology for a supposed biblical view of law/gospel or “New Testament ethics.” The result was New Covenant Theology and Zens tried to propagate the Theology in Reformed Baptist circles. It was met with fierce resistance, and the movement was relegated to a meager group presently known as the Continental Baptist.
However, the idea found new life through another venue where Forum doctrines were being tossed around via the fact that Zens was a student there, and Michael Horton was greatly influenced by Forum ideas—Westminster Seminary. Primarily, a professor of theology there named Jack Miller took the same ideas and formulated a doctrine known as Sonship Theology. Again, the movement was met with fierce opposition, this time in Presbyterian circles. The Sonship label was then dropped and replaced with “gospel,” ie., gospel-centered this, and gospel-driven that. This led Baptist and Presbyterian protestors to believe that the movement was all but dead for the past ten years. But really, the movement was growing covertly under the guise of the gospel nomenclature, and has recently emerged as New Calvinism—a gargantuan movement including church networks, missionary alliances, cooperative training conferences, and “biblical” counseling organizations. The doctrine is overrunning the contemporary church like a giant tsunami and its proponents claim that it is a second Reformation.
In fact, I would probably be conceding myself, thinking, “Everyone else, and now MacArthur? It must be me—I’m missing something on this,” if not for a few souls like Walter Chantry and Dr. Jay Adams. In 1999, Adams published a book to refute Sonship Theology in the same way that Walter Chantry published a book in 1980 to refute Jon Zens’ views (and essentially that of the Forum as well). One year later Zens coined the phrase, “New Covenant Theology.” One of many obvious connections that can be seen in all of this is the fact that two major players in the New Calvinist movement, Tim Keller and David Powlison, were disciples of Jack Miller who coined the phrase: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” which is an often-heard mantra within the movement. Another connection is the popularity of “The Goldsworthy Trilogy (Gospel and Kingdom; Gospel and Wisdom; The Gospel in Revelation)” within the New Calvinist movement—written by Graeme Goldsworthy who was one of three major participants in the Australian Forum project along with Geoffrey Paxton and Robert Brinsmead. This speaks to the likeminded beliefs regarding the gospel shared by the Forum and New Calvinist. I strongly suspect Holland’s book will bear more of the same.
On the back cover of Holland’s book, we read this statement in bold print: “Christ, The Son Of God, Has Been Eclipsed, And We’ve Made Ourselves At Home In This New Normal.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Since the 1950’s the church has been inundated with a hyper-grace mentality. This first gospel wave with a lack of emphasis on discipleship paved the way for Gospel Sanctification. Jay Adams started the true contemporary Reformation in 1970 with his book, “Competent to Counsel” which had a very strong emphasis on discipleship and true biblical counseling. Adams often comments that during that time as he traveled about and spoke, Christians seemed to be surprised that they could actually “do something in their walk with God.” The “normal” in Christianity today is a profound ignorance regarding the sufficiency of Scripture and how to apply it to life in our walk with God. Christ hasn’t been eclipsed—we think He does it all for us. What has been eclipsed is what Jesus says—not who He is. Furthermore, Adams has suffered some significant persecution for his attempt to emphasize doing in the Christian life, especially from the New Calvinist counseling culture and David Powlison who was offended by the book Adams wrote to refute Sonship Theology. New Calvinist like Powlison describe the real contemporary Reformation via Adams (in regard to being used by God) as the “first generation of biblical counseling” in the same way that Luther’s Reformation was first generation. But now, the New Calvinist counseling culture is supposedly part of the second Reformation through the discovery of Gospel Sanctification. Of course, the notion is preposterous and takes arrogance to a new level that has never before been seen.
John MacArthur’s Coming Out
MacArthur’s forward is fraught with blatant error and contemplative spirituality in the form of Gospel Sanctification. MacArthur begins his forward with the following:
“As Christians we have one message to declare: ‘Jesus Christ, and Him crucified’( I Corinthians 2:2). ‘For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake’ ( 2 Corinthians 4:5; cf. I Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14).”
Gospel Sanctification follows the way of many other false doctrines throughout church history; specifically, the eclipsing of other members of the Trinity by overemphasizing one over the others. Jehovah’s Witnesses overemphasize the Father. Charismatics overemphasize the Holy Spirit, etc. Christ Himself, in His mandate to the church, said to baptize in the name of all Three. The Father elects; the Son atones, and the Spirit sanctifies—but we are to only preach Christ? Christ’s emphasis on the Father in regard to salvation saturates the Gospels, especially in the book of John:
John 6:44
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
John 6:65
He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
Christ instructed us to pray to the Father, and according to the apostle Paul:
“Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all” (1Cor. 15:27,28).
MacArthur continues:
“Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.”
No one, or no thing, “deserves” to be the central theme of our private devotions? This follows the Gospel Sanctification tenet that we shouldn’t seek to be instructed from the Scriptures (ie., seeking to know how to love our wives in a way that pleases God, etc). If we meditate on Christ and His works (the gospel), all that Christ commands will happen naturally. Supposedly. I can only assume NO one and NO thing means exactly what the sentence states. But again, it begs the question: “He doesn’t mean to exclude God from that statement, right? Also note the GS teaching that our message is the same for justification AND sanctification: “….nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.”
MacArthur:
“Christ is the perfect image of God (Hebrews 1); the theme of Scripture (Luke 24); the author of salvation (Hebrews 12:2); the one proper object of saving faith (Romans 10:9-10); and the goal of our sanctification (Romans 8:2). No wonder Scripture describes the amazing growth-strategy of the early church in these terms: “They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). That is the only blueprint for church ministry that has any sanction from Scripture.”
Not exactly. The early church also went about preaching “the good news of the kingdom of God”:
Acts 1:3
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
And what did that teaching by Christ also entail?:
Acts 1:6
So when they met together, they asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
And….:
Acts 14:22
strengthening the disciples and encouraging them to remain true to the faith. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said.
Acts 19:8
Paul entered the synagogue and spoke boldly there for three months, arguing persuasively about the kingdom of God.
Acts 20:25
“Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.
Also, in other passages, Christ, and the kingdom of God seem to be separate subjects within the gospel:
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 28:23
They arranged to meet Paul on a certain day, and came in even larger numbers to the place where he was staying. From morning till evening he explained and declared to them the kingdom of God and tried to convince them about Jesus from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.
Acts 28:31
Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Obviously, to the first-century church, “the gospel” included the whole picture of the Trinities saving work.
MacArthur:
“The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.”
To this point in the forward in Holland’s book, MacArthur is using all of the proof texts typically used by Gospel Sanctification proponents. But in regard to 2Cor. 3:18, the correlation between gazing or “beholding the glory of the Lord” and spiritual growth has no direct correlation to being the only facilitator thereof. Such a direct cause and effect correlation is assumed. Besides, Macarthur is being disingenuous by quoting the ESV here because all other translations include the word “glass” or “mirror” with difficulty in ascertaining whether we are looking at Christ’s glory in a mirror, or “reflecting” His glory as in a mirror. Either way, mirrors of that day were polished metal and did not have the perfect reflection like modern mirrors made of class. This creates difficulty for those who want to use this text to show that our primary duty is to gaze on Christ’s glory rather than an understanding of what He’s teaching for the purpose of obedience. However, MacArthur continues to expound on this point with his paramount coming out of the closet statement in the following excerpt:
“As believers gaze at the glory of their Lord—looking clearly, enduringly, and deeply into the majesty of His person and work—true sanctification takes place as the Holy Spirit takes that believer whose heart is fixed on Christ and elevates him from one level of glory to the next. This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds. We are transformed by that glory and we begin to reflect it more and more brightly the more clearly we see it. That’s why the true heart and soul of every pastor’s duty is pointing the flock to Christ, the Great Shepherd.”
In these last two excerpts mentioned, we see MacArthur aping the GS belief that all of Scripture is about Christ and Christ must be seen in every passage. As Jay Adams aptly points out, several books in the Bible do not have Christ as their central theme and plainly say so; for instance, Jude initially intended to write about our common salvation, but instead was led to write an exhortation to contend for pure doctrine. In this statement, MacArthur continues to use 2Cor. 3:18 to make the following point: “As believers gaze at the glory of their Lord—looking clearly, enduringly, and deeply into the majesty of His person and work—true sanctification takes place as the Holy Spirit takes that believer whose heart is fixed on Christ and elevates him from one level of glory to the next.” How do you look “clearly”; “enduringly,” and “deeply” by “see[ing] through a glass, darkly” (1Cor. 13:12) which depicts the mirrors of those days? Christ’s instruction on how we become a house that will withstand the storms of life is plainly stated in Matthew 7:24-27, we hear His words and put those words into practice.
In classic Gospel Sanctification form, MacArthur also implements the either / or hermeneutic in this statement: “This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds.” Here we go again with this serving Christ by our own efforts stuff ( when Peter said, “Make every effort to add to your faith…., “ who’s effort was he talking about?!). If we are to exert effort in the sanctification process, which I’m sure MacArthur would concede, how would we know if it is our own effort or that of the Holy Spirit? And why can’t it be both? Why does it have to be either all of us or all of the Spirit? GS advocates have to create a whole theology just to deal with that question, and it’s called Christian Hedonism which is John Piper’s contribution to the movement. This is the road now traveled by MacArthur: unlike his preaching of the past, but like other Gospel Sanctification advocates, his preaching will now raise more questions than are answered; like, “what do you mean when you say that real servitude to Christ will have nothing to do with my own desires? If I am a new creature—are my desires not changed?” Depending on how far MacArthur decides to go with all of this—the answer would be “no” because GS doctrine holds t a total depravity of the saints. The logical conclusion is that Christ does it all for us as a result of contemplating the gospel. In order to say that without saying it, GS proponents have to work hard (presumably in their own efforts) to make it all fit together.
MacArthur:
“After more than four decades of pastoral ministry, I am still constantly amazed at the power of Christ-centered preaching. It’s the reason I love preaching in the gospels. But I discovered long ago that the glory of Christ dominates Romans, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation—and the rest of Scripture as well. Focusing on that theme has led my own soul and our congregation to a fuller, richer knowledge of Christ—loving Him, worshipping Him, serving Him and yearning for the day when we shall be like Him, having seen Him in His glory (I John 3:2).
Our prayer is that of Paul: ‘that I may know Him!’ (Philippians 3:10). The apostle knew Him well as Savior and Lord (having been privileged to be the last person ever to see the resurrected Christ face to face, according to I Corinthians 15:8)—but never could Paul plumb the rich, sweet depths of the glories of Christ, the inexhaustible, infinite Treasure.”
I am unmoved by MacArthur’s self-delusions and his musings concerning the ever-morphing neo-Calvinist novelties of our day. Peter said that though he and others witnessed the miracles of that age—the testimony of Scripture is more sure, and Gospel Sanctification does not align with the plain sense of Holy writ.
MacArthur:
“Far from allowing Christ to be eclipsed—even partially—by any other object or affection, every believer should pursue with relentless zeal the ‘full knowledge of the glory of God’ provided by a fervent concentration ‘on the face of Christ’ (2 Corinthians 4:6).”
In context, 2Cor. 4:6 refers to those who don’t recognize Christ as Savior in comparison to those who do, and does not prescribe John Piper’s “beholding as a way of becoming.” Christ’s prescription for loving Him is plain in John 14:15,16; we are to obey what he commands with the HELP of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit HELPS us—He doesn’t obey for us by replacing our “own” efforts with something else as a result of contemplation on nebulous concepts concerning the personhood of Christ. Such nonsense has led to all kinds of mystic speculations by New Calvinist; such as, the supposed truth that Christ experienced a suffering in darkness while in Mary’s womb as part of the atonement. Soon, MacArthur will be espousing such speculation from the pulpit if he doesn’t repent and return to orthodoxy. Also, note that he says that we don’t even want to eclipse Christ “partially.” This is like the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel which led them to relegate the new birth to a position of insignificance because it involves a focus on us (subjective), and away from Christ / gospel (objective), and therefore “eclipses Christ.” And unlike the MacArthur of the past, we just have more questions to ask: “How do we partially eclipse Christ? So, other than Christ, what can we talk about? And will it partially eclipse Christ or not?”
In all of this, one should consider what the focus of Peter’s message was to the church when he knew his time of departure was near (2Peter. Ch.1). He plainly said that there was one thing that he wanted them to remember so that their calling and election would be sure. He said he wanted to constantly put them in remembrance of this theme so they wouldn’t forget after he was gone. What was that message? As glorious as it is, was it a laser focus on the personhood of Christ to the exclusion of all else? No, it was a focus on the saints “making every effort” to add certain things to their faith. If contemplation on the personhood of Christ is singularly paramount to spiritual growth, how could Peter possibly say what he did?
This is certain: The apostle Paul said that even if he or an angel came preaching another gospel—reject it, and trust me, MacArthur is no apostle Paul, and I will not follow Gospel Sanctification—even if I am the last person on earth not to do so.
paul
John MacArthur’s Piper / Warren Hypocrisy
John MacArthur’s love affair with New Calvinism and its Cult of Personality is apparent. What is annoying is his double standard concerning those he criticizes and New Calvinist cult figures, particularly John Piper. The most blatant example of this is Mac’s criticism of Rick Warren for excluding repentance from his gospel presentations while at the same time, the absence of repentance in the gospel is a hallmark of New Calvinism (poke Michael Horton’s teachings just about anywhere to try to find repentance). I have been told by a New Calvinist to my face that my inclusion of Acts 17:30 in a gospel presentation was Phariseeism. In fact, I have searched in vain for a message of repentance in any of John Piper’s gospel presentations. In his message, “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel” he offers the following as his specific definition of the gospel:
“What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence. The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That’s the gospel.”
Seems pretty obvious here. He begins with, “What is the gospel ?” And ends with, “That’s the gospel.” My apologies ahead of time to New Calvinist Koolaid drinkers (like Frank Turk) for drawing any conclusions from this statement (also compare it specifically with some of Mac’s complaints about Warren’s presentation).
The following is the video that documents Mac’s diatribe against Warren while giving John Piper a pass.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments