Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy: Part 1, The Australian Forum and Seventh-Day Adventist Connection
It’s always been a bit perplexing to me. When you survey the Gospel-Driven, Gospel Sanctification landscape of our day that includes the T4G, Gospel Coalition, and a massive network of churches, the author of choice for their interpretive prism seems to be Graeme Goldsworthy (hereafter “GG”), an obscure, Anglican theologian from Australia.
As I said, “perplexing.” Until yesterday. While researching, I stumbled across an article written by a Christopher Taylor entitled, “Who is Bill Blogsmith?” Taylor (who I am attempting to contact for an interview) wrote the following:
“In the 1970’s a pair of Australian professors and pastors in the Anglican Church toured the world as the Australian Forum. This touring group went everywhere they were invited and preached the Word as best they could, with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding. As weeks go by I’ll be repeating and expanding on themes of this group, but you can read their thoughts in Present Truth Magazine which is online for free.
Robert Brinsmead became apostate and is sadly teaching rank heresy and frankly non-Christian beliefs. Geoffrey Paxton, the better speaker of the two, has dropped out of sight and I have lost track of him. But when they were the Australian Forum, they spoke God’s honest truth with power, conviction, and a powerful drive. Their humble efforts have shaped the thoughts and ideas of a new generation of theologians such as Rod Rosenbladt and Michael Horton.”
First, does, “….with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding” sound familiar? Secondly, though these guys are from Australia and were preaching in the nineteen-seventies, Robert Brinsmead is often quoted by the super-hip, who’s who of the Gospel Sanctification movement (hereafter “GS” and also known as New Calvinism—has deep roots in Sonship Theology). That’s a very interesting connection: from Australia in the seventies, preaching a gospel-centered sanctification—to playing a part in the latest rendition. Third, the author claims that this forum “shaped the thoughts and ideas” of a major player in the GS movement: Michael Horton. Fourthly, Isn’t GG from Australia? And isn’t he also an Anglican? Hmmmm.
Now GG isn’t looking so obscure, but the plot thickens. Wikipedia has this to say about the Paxton / Brinsmead relationship:
“Paxton has had significant interaction with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and a ‘keen interest’ in its theology.This began through his acquaintance with Robert Brinsmead, as both were critical of the charismatic movement.One source described the pair as “anti-Charismatic crusaders” after one meeting.They held public meetings supporting belief in justification by faith alone. Paxton contributed to Brinsmead’s Present Truth Magazine.”
Not only did Brinsmead and Paxton share a distaste for Charismatic theology, but they worked together, along with GG, in an endeavor to reform the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination (hereafter SDA) by primarily arguing the following along with other SDA theologians (like Desmond Ford): the SDA theologians of old held to the Reformed view of sanctification, and the SDA needed to return to their reformation roots. Hence, Brinsmead, Paxton, and GG were hyper-enamored by Reformed confessions and creeds. At times, to some, it seemed like the threesome gave those documents more credence than Scripture. Sound familiar? I have no idea what compelled these three to enter the SDA fray—perhaps my continued research will offer a theory on that. But the primary purpose of Present Truth magazine was to aid the threesome in the aforementioned endeavor. Another writer stated it this way in the comment section of a forum:
“Most, if not all, the magazine articles available on that site in pdf form date from the 1970s and 1980s and appeared in the printed editions that were available free of charge to anyone who asked, thanks to the generous financial support of Robert Brinsmead, who was a successful Californian avocado grower and was seeking to reform Adventism. Brinsmead himself wrote many of the articles, but many others were written by Rev. Geoffrey Paxton, a ‘conservative’ Anglican priest who taught at Queensland Bible Institute in Australia. Listed as a Consulting Editor was another ‘conservative’ Anglican priest, Rev. Dr. Graeme Goldsworthy, who also taught at QBI and later taught at Moore
Theological College in Sydney (the official theological institution of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney); I do not recall whether Goldsworthy wrote for the magazine or was merely a consultant. (Paxton wrote The Shaking of Adventism, and Goldsworthy is the author of several books.) I do not recall any pro-Adventist views being promoted in the magazines.
Their purpose was to promote what they saw as the truly Protestant view of salvation, which had been corrupted not merely by Adventists but by many other “Protestants” – even so-called ‘evangelical’ ones.”
GG, in fact, did write many of the articles. Furthermore, the very close kinship of beliefs between GG, Paxton, and Brinsmead can be seen by the fact that they reference each other in Present Truth articles. In particular, GG referenced (for agreement purposes) an article written by Paxton in which he wrote that Christians are NOT “born again.” Sound familiar? By the way, Paxton was dismissed from a teaching position for, as Desmond Ford puts it, “his refusal to lay aside his interest in the Adventist ‘cult’” (“The Truth of Paxton’s Thesis” by Desmond Ford. Spectrum 9:3 July 1978).
Now, in regard to the articles in Present Truth and their agreement with Gospel Sanctification—I would like to say that there are no words to describe the uncanny dittolarities, so I will use examples: it would be like distinguishing between two twin penguins; it would be like distinguishing between two capital Ts; It would be like distinguishing between John Piper’s opinions and Justin Taylor’s opinions. It’s the same stuff, and in mass volumes.
Moreover, I was surprised to see that Jon Zens, a primary figure in the development of New Covenant Theology (a GS tenet), also wrote at least one article for Present Truth as well.
A lot more research needs to done which will be reflected in part 2 and other articles following, but it would appear that the Australian Forum preceded Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology. The Australian Forum may, or may not be, the cradle of GS theology. So far, we see a road; some parts wide and well paved, and other parts narrow, from the Forum Trio in Australia, to Michael Horton and others at Westminster (probably one being Edmund Clowney). Then to others at Westminster as well; namely, Jack Miller, and Tim Keller. From them, to David Powlison, Paul Tripp, and Timothy Lane. How Sonship then became Gospel Sanctification is sketchy, but should be easy to figure out in time. Let me further bolster this a little bit by quoting a pastor who graduated from Westminster with a MDiv:
“Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary, came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller, rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF, entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL).
If you want a taste of Sonship theology you can find it in Gospel Transformation put out by World Harvest Ministries; Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller; or A Faith Worth Sharing by C. John Miller.”
In the forthcoming parts, I will compare the Australian Forum’s theology with GS/ Sonship. Is it the cradle of GS, or just another stop along the way? Did this trio create a doctrine designed to refute Charismaticism and Adventism without properly regarding the truth? What does the rest of the family tree look like? Lord willing, we will find out.
paul
Submitted to the Committee on Resolutions for the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention
Resolution On Distinctions Between Justification And Sanctification
June 2011
WHEREAS, A major contribution to the spiritual weakness of many Protestant denominations has been erroneous teachings in regard to sanctification; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians are sanctified by the exact same means of justification only; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians should preach the Gospel of justification to themselves everyday for sanctification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that contemplation on the Gospel of justification alone is the primary duty for the Christian, and from that one duty, all other duties find life; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that a worshipful doxology resulting from a contemplation on justification always precedes obedience acceptable to God; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians need to be justified continually until glorification, and enablement to participate in sanctification has not been granted by God in any portion more than those who need to be justified; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that personal exertion by Christians in response to all that Christ has commanded in Scripture is works salvation.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention affirm Scriptural distinctions between justification and sanctification; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm these distinctions according to Scripture and those that are clearly evident in Article IV of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Concerning enablement in sanctification, Article IV (C) contains this statement as follows: “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”
Concerning justification as a one-time legal declaration by God, Article IV (B) contains the following statement: “Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we believe that the Scriptures are not for the sole purpose of contemplating justification only, but rather according to Article I of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement which contains the following in regard to the Scriptures: “It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm our belief in the biblical truth that Christians are new creatures in Jesus Christ, and therefore, we also agree with Article XV of the 1925 confession which contains this statement: “There is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and wicked”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm as true and biblical, any endeavor or teaching concerning sanctification that likens to these words written by JC Ryle: “In justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse”; and
BE IT THEREFORE FINALLY RESOLVED, That because of the aforementioned convictions commonly believed by Southern Baptists as described in these resolutions, that those who persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification, be deemed unfit as ministers or teachers of the Gospel.
I’m Not Kidding—That’s What He Said
A reader sent me a manuscript from the 2011 John Bunyan Conference in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Basically, the yearly event is a New Covenant Theology love-fest. This year’s conference had many of the who’s who of NCT including John Reisinger and Fred Zaspel. NCT is a tenet of Gospel Sanctification which was mothered by Sonship Theology. NCT, like GS’s other tenets, was developed to bolster Sonship. The two, GS and NCT, go hand in hand. Determined to hold fast to the concept of being sanctified by the same gospel that saves us, advocates have been hard at work since 1980 (approx.) to make the rest of the Bible fit with the aforementioned concept. The result is the following: NCT, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and a gospel-centered hermeneutic borrowed from Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics—invented by liberal theologian Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826).
The manuscript was the text of one of the speakers, Chad Bresson—radio personality and elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. Clearcreek Chapel considers themselves a NCT church (according to another elder there, Dale Evans), and their doctrine is the epitome of Gospel Sanctification. The reader who sent the manuscript referred to Bresson as the “Golden Boy of Gospel Sanctification” in central Ohio. Gagingly, I would have to agree. The opening line of the manuscript, a twenty-nine page linguistic drone, finally surpasses the outrageous absurdity of Bresson’s “Another Brick in the Wall,” in which he creepily / cultishly suggested that the original sin in the garden was not disobedience, but the sin of not submitting to the authority of teachers/ elders. But truly, his thesis and opening line on this one takes the cake:
“Stephen was killed for preaching New Covenant Theology.” I’m not kidding—that’s what he said. I can just see him opening his message (after a silent pause) with this, supposedly, profound capture. First of all, nobody denies that NCT is a recent creation. Richard Barcellos, in his excellent critique of NCT, “In Defense Of The Decalogue,” voiced concern in the book’s preface that the movement was still in its developmental stages, and therefore, difficult to evaluate. That was in 2001. Bresson’s thesis is therefore indicative of NCT’s extreme arrogance—they are supposedly the gatekeepers of this newfound truth some two-thousand years later, and I will give you three wild guesses as to who they think would stone them today. This is why an us against them mentality saturates many GS / Sonship / NCT churches.
After suffering through about twelve pages of the obituary-like document, a few statements begged attention that somehow fail to alarm Christians of our day. First, that the New Covenant abrogated the law, and that all former covenants were cancelled by the NC as well. Of course, as Barcellos points out in his book, the first point blatantly contradicts Jeremiah 31:33, Matthew 5:17, and Romans 3:31. As far as the second point that caught my attention like a penguin singing “I Just Gotta Be Me” in the midst of the flock, it blatantly contradicts Ephesians 2: 11,12 where Paul likens the unregenerate to those “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants [PLURAL NOT SINGULAR] of promise.” Furthermore, Paul then cites an excerpt from the Decalogue to make a point in Ephesians 6:1-3 making it clear that the “promise” thereof still applies to us today. All of the gallons of ink spilled by Bresson will not stand against these few verses of Scripture—truth does not bow to a myriad of words.
paul
Comment By “Anodos” Is Indicative Of Sonship’s Dark Spirit
All false doctrine has its consequences. It’s difficult to write about what one encounters personally with those who propagate Sonship Theology and its offspring, Gospel Sanctification, but a recent comment by “Anodos” on the Tchividjian post is telling. He commented as follows:
“The Pharisees had their doctrine nailed down – they had studied scriptures and worked on it for hundreds of years. Jesus was crucified over a doctrinal issue. The Pharisees’ understanding of that doctrine was correct, but they did not know their God even when He stood face to face with them.
Why?
You have your orthodoxy all worked out, but your spirit is the same as the Pharisee. The next time you stand face to face with Christ, the tables will be turned. It will be He who says, “I do not know you, depart from me you worker of iniquity.”
Repent. Humble yourself and admit that you might not know all that you think you know. Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He will come to those who are spiritually impoverished, to those who are broken hearted and mourn.
Jesus is not a fact. He is a person. Eternal life is not knowing about Jesus, it is knowing Jesus. Your entrance into heaven will not be based on your works or your doctrine, but on whether Jesus knows you. This is a relationship, not a quiz.”
This statement is very, very Sonshippy, and characteristic of the mentality among Sonship’s Koolaid drinking faithful. First, we see the misrepresentation of the Pharisees as a device for promoting their false doctrine. Supposedly, the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and had a laser focus on correct doctrine, but missed the whole point of salvation which has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with knowing Christ as a “person.” Only problem is—that’s not true.
Anodos’ contention that the Pharisees had Jesus crucified over correct doctrine is a classic GS proposition, but doesn’t square with what Scripture states. Just imagine how intimidating this is to those who are under it; your best intentions in regard to following the truth could result in you being a Pharisee without realizing it. Moreover, since a relationship with Christ has nothing to do with the truth (“Jesus is not a fact. He is a person”), you wouldn’t dare go to the Scriptures and make your own assessment because that is truth-based / doctrine oriented. Therefore, you must be able ascertain what the Scriptures are teaching you about Jesus’ personhood for relationship purposes, and not knowledge. Since you wouldn’t normally try that at home—yep, you guessed it—better depend on those who are really, really good with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic. Do you think that I am insinuating that GS doctrine (which is based on Jesus as a “person [a no-brainer]—not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” [Paul Tripp]) relegates GS followers to a Pope-like dependence on their leaders for understanding the Scriptures? Absolutely.
The fact is: the Pharisees were the sultans of false doctrine and lawlessness. All of the trials leading up to Jesus’ execution were completely unlawful. Jesus made it clear that they changed the law and replaced it with their traditions. In fact, Jesus accused them of nullifying the law and making it “void” (Matthew 15:16). Since law (Scripture: see Matthew 5:18) determines doctrine, the Pharisees didn’t have correct doctrine. Obviously.
Hence, the idea heard constantly among the GS crowd: those who form their beliefs from biblical facts make the same mistake the Pharisees supposedly made. I have heard this from GS leaders firsthand. Only the gospel, as seen in the Scriptures, is “Spirit”; “facts” are the “letter” of the law –not the Spirit. Therefore, supposedly, the “letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” and they cite 2Corinthians 3:6 accordingly. Can I emphasize enough how dangerous this teaching is?
Secondly, this is postmodern thought. The following are statements by John MacArthur Jr. in “Truth War” concerning the Emergent Church and Postmodern thought. See if you can detect the parallels between GS hermeneutics / Anodos’ comments, and what MacArthur writes as follows:
“Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility” (page 16).
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, emphasis added).
“Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture” (Page 16).
Quoting John Armstrong, a proponent of the Emerging Church: “Theology must be a humble human attempt to ‘hear him’ – never about rational [again, my emphasis] approaches to text” (page 21).
Thirdly, Anodos displays a common propensity among GS advocates to proclaim dissenters as unregenerate. Notice that Anodos, like most GS advocates, base this on my exegetical view of Scripture. Anodos might note in the verse that he uses to condemn me that the word for “iniquity” is “anomia” which means “anti-law” (negative article “a” and “nomia” [law]). That sounds more like the GS crowd than me.
Lastly, Anodos’ comment is indicative of GS/Sonship’s inadequacy in presenting the gospel. “Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you,” is not how one gets saved. I was involved in a situation where I was asked to counsel an individual who was living in unspeakable sin. Later, we became disassociated with each other when he started counseling with a GS / Sonship “elder.” Some time later, I was informed that the counselee spent hours on his knees begging God to save him, and to no avail. Why? Apparently, the counselee had been taught by the GS counselor that before he could be saved, God had to show him his salvation as a “treasure chest of joy.”
Anodos, that’s why you and your GS cohorts are wicked false teachers. And frankly, I don’t care if your names are Anodos, John Piper, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Paul Tripp, Francis Chan, etc, etc, etc. I don’t care how well any of you speak, how well you dress, how many followers you have, or even how good you smell. Your vile doctrine is ruining people’s lives and I will contend against it until God gives me my last breath.
paul
Luke 24:27, and 44: Every Verse In The Bible Is Not About Christ
A supposed “proof text” used by Sonship / GS proponents is Luke 24:27 and 24:44: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” And, “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (verse 44).
Supposedly, these verses demonstrate that all of Scripture is about Christ. Let me be clear; if someone wants to say that every verse in the Bible is about what Christ says / commands / teaches / demonstrates, I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s not what GS proponents are saying. They are saying, with an ever-so slight twist and a wink, that all of Scripture is about Christ as a “person.” Instead of focusing on what Christ says, the goal now is to discover who He is personally so you can have an “intimate” relationship with Him. Nobody knows what that means exactly—it just sounds spiritual. Certainly, it sounds more spiritual than living by “a bunch of rules and a list of do’s and don’ts.” Bingo, you have gone from the objective to the subjective; now you can teach anything you want to teach. And trust me, they do. We are not yet trying to ascertain from Scripture what Jesus’ favorite color is, or His favorite food, but give it time—maybe till the next Francis Chan book.
However, to begin with, Christ wasn’t even saying that all Scripture concerns Him. The totality of Scripture available at that time was the Old Testament, and had three divisions: the law, the prophets, writings (which included the Psalms). Most historians think that this is how the OT was divided at that time (actually, the evidence is pretty solid). The order was later changed in the Septuagint (LXX). So in Luke 24:44, why did Jesus only mention the Psalms in the writings part / division? Normally, when Jesus spoke of the OT as a whole, he used the term, “Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17) or just “Law” (Matthew 5:18). A good explanation can be found in “The Infallible Word” written by the Westminster Theological Seminary faculty in 1946 (when their faculty had their right minds).
In the book, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not the Sonship / GS idea that all Scripture is Christocentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word ‘psalms’? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
In the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence” as it is more than fair to say of the GS mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself [Christ]. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
11 comments