“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 6: Can Christian Women Gone Wild Save Us From New Calvinism?
I have shared my theory in other posts that contemporary antinomians are like serial criminals. Not in essence of being actual criminals, but in their deep-seated desire to get caught. You have seen the plot in movies—serial criminals always dropping catch me if you can hints to the police. At least two antinomians of our day, Tullian Tchividjian and John Piper, are good examples of this. But first, let me say that I realize that I am one of the very few people around who equate Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology ( Tim Keller, a significant forerunner of Sonship theology, is one of the founders of TGC) / the gospel-driven life with antinomianism. However, my reasoning is simple; if we are sanctified by justification, that excludes the law either by obligation or ability. Neither do I buy into the idea that thinking the law is good—is an acceptable replacement for an obligation to obey it. Also, the fact that I rubbed shoulders with six GS proponents for several years, and I’m privy to the fact that they bragged about being antinomians is not helpful to those who are trying to persuade me otherwise.
Hold on, my phone is ringing: “Oh! Hi honey. Uh—uh , ya, hmmm. I know sweety, we have discussed this before—getting to the point and such, ya, I will get to the women shortly. Ok, talk to you later, bye!”
Anyway, Tullian Tchividjian recently dropped a really big hint by promoting the idea that preachers should strive to be accused of antinomianism as a way to validate their preaching as having enough Jesus. When one, lone man protested, it made national headlines in Christian circles. But despite Tchividjian’s efforts, it didn’t work. The one, lone protestant focused on the accusation element without considering for a moment that maybe TT really is antinomian. Whew, that was a close one! Michael Horton followed the same week by accusing an accuser of accusing him of antinomianism when the accuser never even used the word in the accusation. Another hint? Hmmmm.
Also, we have John Piper, the First Pope of New Calvinism, continually drawing attention to himself (hints?) by promoting heretics and refusing to correct associates that use profanity in public, while notable evangelicals at large cover for him, and not for a moment considering that any of this has anything to do with the guy’s theology while teaching that what we believe always dictates what we do—unless you’re Pope John the First. A prime example of this is Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God conventions. But hello, when you believe that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, how can the particular elements of God’s truth really have that much significance? If Warren also believes that the Bible is a plenary gospel narrative, everything else is fair game—so why wouldn’t they hangout together? In fact, a reader sent me a quote by Tchividjian in regard to his defense of Piper for the invite by saying something like this: “All truth is God’s truth, even if it comes from Rick Warren.”
But what’s up with Piper being defended by the likes of Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right-hand guy, in the following post: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html ? “I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors.” Unbelievable. That is, until you read this in the same post:
“Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can’t touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper’s live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.
It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders’ roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper’s stature. These things ought not to be.”
First of all, God is sovereign; it is obvious that God planned before the foundation of the Earth for me to marry Susan and not the woman who called Piper a clown. Besides, in the spirit of defending people just because we like them, are we sure that wasn’t her way of saying Piper is a follower of Edmund Clowney? As I unravel the sorted history of New Calvinism, there is some question as to who was really the father of Sonship theology that is the fundamental basis for neo-Calvinism—Clowney, or John “Jack” Miller. Clowney wrote Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, and Christian Meditation. Any of those themes sound familiar in Piper’s teachings? But if that’s not the case, to Phil Johnson’s point, how dare that woomun call out a man of “Piper’s stature” (did he really say that? Let me check again.Yep, he sure did). Well, that pretty much says it all—if one of the who’s who of the evangelical world teaches error, the uneducated book-buying peasants of American church culture need to keep their mouths shut and submit to the “ruling elders.” Worse yet, if not unthinkable, is the idea that one of the woomun peasants would speak out!
If Phil would check Acts 17:11: the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for vetting Paul’s (the apostle) teachings and no gender is mentioned. In fact, verse 12 seems to indicate women were among them. And I know this is difficult for Phil, but John Piper is no apostle Paul. Furthermore, Priscilla and Aquila both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26), and I doubt Piper is an Apollos as well. As far as Phil’s citing of 1Timothy 2:12, because of 1Corinthians 14:34, I would think Paul is referring to the corporate setting, and not the milieu of life in general. Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, agrees; see his comments on 1Timothy 2:12 in his Bible Commentary, page 1783. He states the following: “He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3,4).” John’s over the Seminary and Phil’s over other stuff, right?
Moreover, now that we have established that women can callout man-leaders of high stature, Phil apparently deleted a woman who was dead-on regarding Piper taking a permanent sabbatical. Piper took an eight-month sabbatical for beyond unbiblical reasons. An eight-month, paid sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.”? And the obvious logical conclusion as follows: an eight-month sabbatical instead of being counseled by his own elders; where is all of that in the Bible? Add to that his announcement that he is hoping to remain pastor there five years after returning from his sabbatical. The lady is absolutely right, why not just retire and be done with it? And by the way, HOW DO YOU PREDETERMINE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ELIMINATE “SEVERAL SPECIES OF HEART IDOLS”? ARE THEY THE EIGHT-MONTH TYPE? Have we lost our minds?
Phil also wrote: “It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women….” Yes, discerning Christian woman gone wild, and thank goodness for them. Phil sates that it is mostly women who are speaking up and calling for leaders to be held accountable. Sad. And the women folk are right about something else: something can be done about it; separation, not inviting them to conferences (Matthew 18:17). Rejection, not fellowship (Titus 3:10 Rom 16:17,18), Rebuke, not excuses (1Timothy 5:19).
John Piper is one of the featured speakers at this years TGC conference in Chicago. Who knows what hint he will drop this time around. Will some Christian woman gone wild have to satisfy his deep-seated desire to be exposed? Can Christian women gone wild save the church from New Calvinism? Stay tuned.
paul
Psychological Theory: Antinomians Want to Be Caught, Part 1
Don’t get me wrong, I’m thankful; it’s about time antinomians of our day have to answer the charge. But have you ever heard the theory by psychologist that serial criminals want to be caught? In regard to applying the same theory to the serial antinomians of our day, I have to think the theory has merit.
Consider what has happened this week. A writer for “Pyromaniacs,” a blog authored by Phil Johnson, (an associate of John MacArthur Jr.), wrote a six-page open letter to Micheal Horton and others at the “White Horse Inn,” another blog of the Reformed sort. Horton responded to the open letter by denying that he was an antinomian while defending another proponent of gospel sanctification / Sonship theology who had supposedly been accused as well by pastor Jason Hood, via an article Hood wrote in Christianity Today. A rough week for antinomians, supposedly.
But the fact that Horton responded to the open letter as if it was an accusation that he is antinomian – is surprising because it would take at least five attorneys to interpret the letter that way, if in fact it was an accusation of antinomianism to begin with; I certainly didn’t take it that way.
So why did Horton respond that way? See, it’s true; deep down, they want to get caught. Horton initially defended himself in the first paragraphs of his response, but then toyed with his “accuser” by dropping in clues as to what they should really be accusing him of: antinomianism based on his doctrine! After his defense, his suggested cure for antinomianism was “more gospel”(hint, hint). So after denying that he’s antinomian, he actually launched into a full-blown antinomian doctrine! I will dissect his response in part 2, but in essence, he said “more justification in sanctification.” I posed this question in the comment section and expect it will never get out of moderation purgatory:
“Dr Horton: or anyone else,
If we are sanctified by justification, and we don’t have a role in justification, how can we have a role in our sanctification? And if we can’t have a role in our sanctification, isn’t that antinomianism by default? I don’t have to obey / I can’t obey. What’s the difference?”
But it gets better. In the other article Horton complains about, Hood doesn’t accuse the new pastor of Coral Ridge Presbyterian (the late James D. Kennedy’s church) of antinomianism, but rather only complains that Tullian Tchividjian bragged about being an antinomian! See, again, Tchividjian is another example of a serial antinomian who wants to get caught; so he bragged about being an antinomian. However, it didn’t work.
Will the Keystone Discernment Police ever figure it out? Stay tuned. But meanwhile, here’s another clue for Team Pyro: you don’t need six pages – you only need six words; “How is progressive justification not antinomianism?
paul
The Church’s Primary Foe Has Always Been Antinomianism, and Always Will be: Not Legalism
“Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness.”
In Phil Johnson’s “The History of Heresy: Five Errors that Refuse to Die” he says the following in the introduction: “In this seminar, we will look at five major heresies that have plagued the church again and again throughout history. Here are the five heretical groups we’ll talk about: the Judaizers, the Gnostics, the Arians, the Pelagians, and the Socinians.” Johnson’s thesis is that most heresies throughout church history fit into one of these five, or a combination thereof.
First on his list is by far the most recognized, legalism (Judaizers): “The apostles’ war with legalism permeates the book of Acts and most of the epistles.” Though this is somewhat true, the following is more accurate: heresies that promote disobedience; namely, antinomian type heresies, dwarf legalism throughout the Scriptures. The Bible begins with a deception that led to disobedience (Eve in the garden, Genesis 3:1-19), and ends accordingly ( Revelation 20:7-10). The Scriptures are also saturated with accounts of the same heretical endeavor between Genesis and Revelation.
In fact, legalistic heresies are barely mentioned in the Old Testament, if at all, and really don’t occupy that much of the New Testament, especially when compared to Antinomianism. By the way, in contrast to the popular myth of our day, the Lord’s contention with the Pharisees was not legalism, but rather replacing God’s Law with their own traditions which led to a disregard for the Law: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5: 19 ESV). Rather than “break” (KJV), to modify, relax (ESV), dissolve, or melt is a better rendering, and this is exactly what the Pharisees did by mixing God’s Law with their traditions (Matthew 15:3-9).
The following excerpt does a good job of explaining what Antinomianism is, and how much this subject is spoken of in Scripture:
SO WHAT’S IT MEAN?
‘Antinomian’ is pronounced [an-ta-nome´-ee-ann]. The word itself can be traced back to the Greek of the New Testament. It comes from putting two Greek words together: `anti (anti) and nomos (nomos). The first word “anti” taken by itself means, “over against or instead of”, and corresponds to our English word “anti”, which means “opposed to”.
The second half of the word ‘Antinomian’, which is the word “nomos”, means: (1) a law, rule, standard; (2) a rule of life or moral conduct. This is the same word that is translated “law” in “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.”-KJV. Rom. 3:31. Consequently, when these two Greek words are combined, it gives the meaning: lawlessness; without, opposed to or against laws, standards, or rules of moral conduct.
IS ‘ANTINOMIAN’ A BIBLE WORD?
Yes, it most certainly is (in the Greek Language, that is). It can be found in the following form 25 times throughout the New Testament. This time it again comes from taking the Greek word “nomos”, but prefixing it with the negative particle “a” to give the Greek word “anomos”. The Greek word “nomos” was previously defined as: a law, rule, standard; a rule of life or moral conduct. When the negative article “a” is prefixed to it, the exact same meaning as our English word ‘Antinomian’ is derived. The Greek translation for this New Testament word is: lawlessness; the condition of being without law; having contempt for law.
It is usually translated (Strongs # 458, 459) using vague words like ‘iniquity’, ‘wicked’, ‘unrighteousness’ or ‘transgressor’ (in the Authorized Version-KJV). It’s even more vague in all the newer translations. Only 6 times was it clearly translated (KJV) as ‘without law’, ‘lawless’, etc., in 3 verses only. However, understanding this word’s true meaning, brings new meaning and clarity to all verses that contain it. Even though it is found translated ‘iniquity in Matt. 7:23, the words ‘Antinomian’ or ‘lawlessness’ could rightfully be put there instead. It would then read, starting at verse 21, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work “lawlessness” (Antinomianism).
Other verses that condemn Antinomians to hell are: “The Son of man shall send forth His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do ‘Antinomian(ism)‘.” “And because ‘Antinomians‘ shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with ‘Antinomians‘? and what communion hath light with darkness?” “For the mystery of ‘Antinomian(ism)’ doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” “Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all ‘Antinomian(ism)’, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good work (Matt.13:41; Matt. 24:12; 2 Cor. 6:14; 2 Thess. 2:7; Titus 2:14) [ see full article: goo.gl/hkoP ].
Therefore, though legalism is a big problem, the constant representation of legalism as the primary foe of the church is unmerited and misleading, and is often a ploy by the Antinomians themselves. Church history would agree with this as well. The apostle Paul said the mystery of Antinomianism was already at work during his time, and would be culminated by the appearing of the sultan of Antinomianism, the antichrist, or who he called the “lawless one” ( 2Thess. 2:7-12). Likewise, the apostle John said that in his time “many antichrists have come” and “antichrist is coming” (1John 2:18). John also said this is how we know that we are in the last age; it will be dominated by a spirit of lawlessness (1John 2:26- 3:10). In addition, Christ said the last days will be earmarked by cold hearts resulting from “lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12). Interesting, cold hearts don’t cause lawlessness; cold hearts are “because” of lawlessness. Something to think about. Please note: the forte of the antichrist will not be legalism, but rather lawlessness. And the present handy-work of his minions does not result in a climate of legalism, but rather lawlessness. This is undoubtedly what Samuel Rutherford had in mind when he entitled his treatise against Antinomianism, “A Survey of Spiritual Antichrist.”
Never the less, the thinking of the contemporary church is that Antinomianism is not the primary threat to the church’s purity. A few contemporary, and well noted teachers such as AW Tozar would disagree: “Fundamental Christianity in our times is deeply influenced by that ancient enemy of righteousness, Antinomianism” ( AW Tozar: “Paths to Power” WingSpread, 1964 ). Indeed, it seems that the mentality of our day is that Antinomainism disappeared after the great Antinomian controversies of the 17th century. Church historians such as Tim Cooper have downplayed that controversy (and the Antinomian threat in general) by asserting that Richard Baxter, Samuel Rutherford, and others less notable, greatly exaggerated the threat (Tim Cooper: “Richard Baxter and Antinomianism” University of Cantebury, 1997). Of course, this is very unlikely when we consider what the apostles taught regarding lawlessness. It seems clear that the threat began in a significant way (the mystery of lawlessness) when Christ appeared, marking the beginning of the “last age” (Heb. 1:2), and will presumably increase with intensity until the “lawless one” appears. Therefore, we should expect that Antinomianism is very much alive and well in our present time as well as in times past.
In the great Antinomian controversy of the 17th century, Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford took no prisoners and named names. The names were Robert Towne, William Dell, John Eaton, Tobias Crisp, John Traske, and John Saltmarsh. Like the Antinomians of our day, these men fiercely objected to the charge, but Baxter and Rutherford were not swayed, and Saltmarsh became a favorite target of Baxter till the end of his (Baxter’s) ministry. JC Ryle mentions this controversy in his “20 Letters on Holiness” which was Ryle’s own response to the Antinomian influences of his day in the 19th century.
Without a doubt, the most distinguishing mark of Antinomians in the past and present is the synthesizing of justification and sanctification. James Durham said the following in regard to this point: “In some respects an opposite error to Popery, …the Antinomians … make all sanctification to be justification …” Tim Cooper, in the above cited dissertation, said this: “The Antinomians accepted that the Law should be preached to sinners, and both sides agreed that it played no part in the justification of those sinners, but the Antinomians refused to grant it a role in their sanctification” (p. 63). Another way of stating it would be “sanctification by faith alone,” just like justification is by faith alone. AW Tozar said the following in describing the Antinomian position: “What we do cannot matter as long as we believe rightly. The divorce between creed and conduct is absolute and final. The question of sin is settled by the Cross; conduct is outside the circle of faith and cannot come between the believer and God. Such in brief, is the teaching of the Antinomian.” JC Ryle said this in contending against the Antinomians of his day:
“It is thoroughly Scriptural and right to say “faith alone justifies.” But it is not equally Scriptural and right to say “faith alone sanctifies.” The saying requires very large qualification. Let one fact suffice. We are frequently told that a man is “justified by faith without the works of the law,” by St. Paul. But not once are we told that we are “sanctified by faith without the deeds of the law.” On the contrary, we are expressly told by St. James that the faith whereby we are visibly and demonstratively justified before man, is a faith which “if it has not works is dead, being alone” ( James 2:17).
How Antinomians have attempted to make this all fit together is varied, but necessarily accompanied by doublespeak and nuanced language because many of them throughout history have been, and are presently joined at the hip with orthodox Christianity. Such was the case with Dell, Towne, Saltmarsh et al. Tim Cooper, while downplaying the threat of Antinomianism during the 17th century controversy, had this to say in regard to the Antinomians of that day:
“Yet it is not at all clear that this is what the Antinomians actually taught, and the confusion is not helped by their own ambiguity. For example, Robert Towne denied the law any place in sanctification, [by our efforts] while at the same time affirming “the use of the Morall Law to true beleevers. For it keeps them close in spirit and conscience through faith unto Christs righteousnesse” [In other words, it shows them what Christ did, or “Christs rightousnesse” in fulfilling the Law for us, since we are unable]. It was not the only place where he agreed that the law should be preached to believers, but his point was finely nuanced. “I wish that 1 be not mistaken, for 1 never deny the Law to be an etemall and inviolable Rule of Righteousness [ours? Or merely the “rule” itself?]: but yet affirme that its the Grace of the Gospel which effectually and truely confirmeth us thereunto” [Yes, because Christ also came (supposedly) to obey for us as well, and impute His obedience to us so that we don’t have to obey; this is considered to be part of the gospel by Antinomians]. Towne asserted that the law should be preached to believers because it set out the standard of righteousness, not forgetting that only the gospel of grace could ever bring the Christian to attain it. It was, perhaps, a subtlety that was lost on his opponents “(p.64) [not really, they knew what he was really saying].
Likewise, JC Ryle had this to say about the double-speaking Antinomians of his day:
“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain then many seem to make it in these days.”
I do not believe that there has ever been a time in church history where the Dells and Townes have been missing, but in our day, the Baxters and the Ryles are nowhere to be found.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
7 comments