Comments by “Karen” and “Jill” Capture the Fundamentals of the New Calvinist Lie and its Life Formula
Hardly anything that comes out of New Calvinism is the truth. I was reminded of this as I read a recent comment by “Karen” on the Michael Horton Trilogy post. See no law, hear no law, speak no law:
In the comment, Karen regurgitates the usual New Calvinist canned gospel along with the usual communication techniques that attempt to cover for a lack of validity; and attempts to demean those who are not on the cutting edge of the “New Reformation.” Here is the comment:
“You obviously haven’t listened to Horton on his White Horse Inn broadcasts, where he and the panel are always admonishing the church to preach the Law AND the Gospel. One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law, and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification. Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ” . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law). But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
I. Communication
The first thing we see in Karen’s comment under “communication” is the New Calvinist (NC) prerequisite for those who are not followers of NC. You have to read EVERY book any particular NC has written in order to be qualified to criticize them. This is a technique often used to defend John Piper who has written about 600 books on joy. He is the spiritual counterpart to Anne McCaffrey who wrote the mystical “Pern” series, and trust me, she couldn’t hold a candle to the first pope of NC, John Piper. Of course, this sets a standard not even foisted upon Holy Writ—the idea that you have to read the whole Bible to understand any of it. But as the fawning, Koolaid drinking writers of the Pyro blog note, “To know Piper is to understand Piper”(gag).
The second thing we see under communication is the misrepresentation of terms. Yes, Horton and the White Horse Inn gang constantly talk about law and gospel, but what they mean by those terms are not orthodox. Horton believes that the purpose of the law is to drive Christians to despair so that they will be totally dependant on Christ. Like Paul David Tripp, he also believes that any effort on our part to keep the law only breeds self righteousness. In “Another Gospel,” there will be a whole chapter dedicated to NC phraseology.
The third element in NC communication is intimidation: “You obviously haven’t…,” and “One must….” etc. Ever heard the one about what was written in the preacher’s sermon notes? “Point weak—pound pulpit here.” This works particularly well for Piper who is also helped by this because he looks like Yoda’s big brother.
II. New Calvinist Doctrine
1. The Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification.
The first element of NC doctrine can be seen in Karen’s statement as follows: “One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law,…” The goal of a believer is not to achieve righteousness for justification; that is a onetime legal declaration by God that happens when we believe. Christians seek to obey the law because “we make it our goal to please him” as colaborers with God in sanctification (2Cor. 5:9, 1Cor. 3:9, 1Thess. 3:2).
2. The Total Depravity of the Saints.
If the law has the same role in the lives of unbelievers as it does for believers, this logically speaks of ability being the same. In fact, Horton plainly writes in Christless Christianity, page 62, that justification (or, “gospel”) gives life to unbelievers in the same way that it gives life to believers when they revisit the gospel “afresh.” Horton also states on the same page that any other application besides the gospel in the Christian life results in the loss of salvation.
3. Denial of the New Birth.
Obviously, if our ability to obey the law is no more than that of an unbeliever, one must ask: “What about Christians being “new creatures”? That’s easy, NC deny the significance of the new birth. In the cradle of New Calvinism, Robert Brinsmead’s Australian Forum (along with G. Paxton and G. Goldsworthy [the Australian 3 or “A3”]), concurred that there is a new birth, but that lending significance to that fact would eclipse the preeminence of the gospel and the works of Jesus Christ. Example: yes, it’s true that there are planets that are 300 light years away from us, but what is the significance of them when discussing the Sun? Rick Holland uses this same hermeneutical logic in his book, “Uneclipsing The Son” to promote the NC doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. Consider this side by side comparison of quotes from G. Paxton and Michael Horton:
Paxton: “It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above
and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.”
Horton: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own
‘Spirit-filled’ life?”
4. The Obedient Life of Christ as Part of the Atonement.
Known as the imputed active obedience of Christ, it adds the obedience that Christ practiced during His incarnation to our account along with righteousness. Therefore, active obedience is imputed to us, and any attempt on our part to obey is a denial of a key part of the atonement. I highly recommend pastor Terry Rayburn’s sound refutation of this doctrine here (5 Part series):
http://grace-for-life.blogspot.com/2011/03/active-obedience-imputation-is-not.html
Karen’s reflection of this doctrine can be seen in this statement: “….and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification.”
5. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event.
Karen says: “Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ‘ . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.’ Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law).”
This is the NC teaching that the Bible demonstrates contemplation on the gospel as the key to spiritual growth by a supposed grammatical pattern that always displays the works of Christ/gospel (indicative) prior to commands (imperative). This is hardly a consistent pattern throughout Scripture. Don’t be fooled by Karen’s typical NC nuanced doublespeak. She seems to be saying that our good works are a result of being saved by Christ, but she is really toeing the classic NC line that Christ is obeying for us because His obedience was imputed to us through the atonement. Contemplating the gospel results in an effortless display of His obedience—not ours. This can be seen in this part of her statement: “(what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf).” Obviously, if Christ has already “accomplished” IT, there is nothing more for us to “accomplish.” Notice that in her citation of Phil. 2:12,13, both God and believer “work,” but her implication is: go ahead and do what Jesus did and it will be effortless because he already accomplished it. So, any works in our OWN effort is not of Christ because when it is Him doing it, it doesn’t require our effort. If you doubt that’s the take, consider this statement by “Jill” whom I was having a discussion with last night:
“When Christ lives in us, everything is effortless because it is Christ living in us doing it all through us. When we have to work in our own strength to please God, we know that we are still bound by the law.”
In Jill’s statement, all the elements of what we are discussing here can be seen.
However, we must remember: like the new birth, the will to obey God is a gift, but with all gifts, we still possess it (new creatureship and the will) regardless of the fact that it is a gift. Therefore, we are enabled to obey—have the will to obey (which does not imply that we will always feel like the will is there), and it is really us obeying/working.
6. The Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and look how angry God was with them, so let that be a lesson to you; if you try to keep the law, your nothing but a Pharisee. No, no, even though the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law, you need a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness they had—the righteousness of Christ that comes by your non-effort which shows your faith.
This worn out, straw man eating a red herring argument used often by NC can be seen in these words by Karen: “But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
Again, pleasing Christ, and putting on the new creature while putting off the old, is not an attempt to secure justification as Karen suggests. And, Christ was saying the exact opposite of what NC say He is saying in Matthew 5:20. Because the Pharisees were actually antinomian law-breakers of the worse sort, Christ was saying that your life better look a whole bunch better than theirs. Christ’s beef with the Pharisees was not their supposed attempt/efforts to apply the truth to their life, but the fact that they distorted the law with their traditions, and thereby making the law “void” ( Matthew 15:6 ESV). This fact can also be clearly seen in the context of Matthew 5. The Pharisees were the ones who “relaxed” the law and taught others to do the same.
7. By attempting to keep the law, the Pharisees were only cleaning the outside of the cup and not truly dealing with the heart (Matthew 23:25-28).
Karen doesn’t touch on this, but it is the matching bookend of NC’s Pharisee angle, so I present it here as a bonus point. Supposedly, any effort on our part to keep the law only concerns the outer person. We supposedly change from the inside out by contemplating the gospel with the result being an outer manifestation of Christ’s obedience, not ours. But again, that is a distortion of what Christ was really saying. Christ was saying that outer obedience is always preceded by inner obedience, not contemplative spirituality:
“So you alsooutwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full ofhypocrisy and lawlessness.”
The word for “lawlessness” in this passage is “anomia” which means “without the law” or “anti-law” or “against the law.” The Pharisees were disobedient in regard to their inner life (thinking, reasoning, knowledge, etc). They were law-breakers on the inside and the outside both. Apparently, one of the primary reasons God destroyed mankind except for Noah’s family was: “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
III. Conclusion
Despite the fact that NC are masters of nuance and double speak, their formula for life is simply this: Living the Christian life is an effortless endeavor that only seeks to display the works of Christ and the gospel that flow from “worship” and spiritual contemplation. It is a formula that is wreaking havoc on Christian families and will continue to do so. And although most Christians today deny this doctrine based on terminology, it is how they function in real life. This can be easily demonstrated. When one goes to college, he/she will have to labor in various ways to eventually earn a degree. Not only that, they will have to learn something NEW in every class they attend every day in order to obtain a grade that illustrates that they have the knowledge necessary to perform a trade. That’s college—not sanctification, but yet, how many Christians have that attitude about what’s necessarily for the Christian life? And regardless of the fact that the apostle Paul said: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth,” Christian leaders insist that believers make the ABC’s of Christianity the A-Z.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
New Calvinism’s Dirty Little Secret: How They Practice “Redemptive” Church Discipline
Don’t misunderstand, I’m not crazy about how most churches practice church discipline to begin with; for example, I don’t think Matthew 18:15-35 is a grid for church discipline—I think it’s a grid for resolving conflict among Christians. I also think the term is unbiblical as well; there is self discipline in the Bible, and there is God’s discipline, but there is no discipline practiced by the church. The church is to put certain procedures into motion that will pave the way for God to discipline, but the church does not perform the discipline. It’s an important distinction.
Nevertheless, churches need to be proactive in a biblical way in regard to resolving conflict and confronting sin. But the best kept secret of the New Calvinist movement (Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology, hereafter NCGSS) is its creepy, cultish way of practicing what they call “redemptive church discipline” (hereafter RCD). RCD is mostly practiced by Reformed elders in Baptist circles where local churches are not accountable to higher authorities. However, that will change as church hierarchies continue to show a lack of intestinal fortitude in regard to standing up against the big names of New Calvinism (hereafter NC).
It all begins with what is becoming clearer to me as I understand more, and more about this movement—everything is about an extreme form of justification, ie., being justified by Christ and His works alone. You would think that it would be impossible to take that belief to an extreme, but NC certainly does. Whether they will admit it or not, among other extremes, they teach that our present obedience was imputed to us by Christ in His atonement and presently performed by Him, and not us. They call this “the imputed active obedience of Christ.” They often speak of the necessity that Christ lived a perfect life while here in the flesh so that His perfect obedience could be imputed to us along with a legal declaration of righteousness. So, other than His death on the cross (what they call His “passive” obedience) and His resurrection being efficacious for the atonement—His perfect life (“active” obedience) is not assumed by virtue of the fact that He is Christ, and was also needed so that obedience could be imputed to us as well.
However, while pounding that point home, when you ask them if Christ’s obedience is still active, you get the deer in the headlight look. Why? Because if they say “yes” (and trust me, according to their doctrine, the answer is “yes”), that can only mean that He is presently obeying in our place. If you pay attention, you can see hints of this in their unguarded statements. In an informal document written by Jon Zens that recounts his conversations with Robert Brinsmead, the subject at hand was “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” A reader coined a phrase yesterday that may be apt: “imputed sanctification.”
This extreme view of justification also leads NC to deny the centrality of the Father and the new birth. Logical conclusions also point to unorthodox teachings such as daily justification, or the need to be resaved on a continual bases. This blog is replete with quotes that affirm these accusations.
It therfore stands to reason that church discipline must concern justification as well. The problem this poses for NC is the fact that orthodox church discipline calls for obedience on the part of the believer—which shifts the “emphasis to the believer and away from Christ” (what they call an erroneous subjective justification rather than an objective justification). Therefore, they had to come up with a church discipline that focuses away from demands upon the Christian and implements the works of Christ instead. Hence, “redemptive” church discipline.
How does it work? First, the sin really isn’t the issue per se. Elders may announce to any parishioner at any time that they have been placed into the process of RCD. In RCD, the “steps” are not the Matthew 18 steps that could lead to disfellowship, rather, the steps are part of the process of which you are either in or out of—via elder announcement. If the elders perceive that you have a cooperation or colaboring view of sanctification, you can be placed into the process to correct your view of redemption—that’s why they call it RDC. Therefore, a member could find him/herself in the process because of a theological discussion with an elder, and in fact, this has happened. Once in the process the parishioner is not free to vacate his membership until the elders determine “fruit meet for repentance.” The process can move from step to step (supposedly per Matthew 18) within the process if the individual in the process shows no acclimation to the “proper” view of redemption. Eventually, no movement in the desired direction (months, or even years later) can lead to the fourth and final step—disfellowship.
Those who try to leave that particular church in the midst of the process are also disfellowshipped—the congregation naturally assumes this happened because the member attempted to vacate membership before an offended party, or those confronting sin could confront him in a second or third step with witnesses in a traditional church discipline. In other words, parishioners in NC churches usually don’t know that their elders are practicing this kind of discipline, but rather assume the more traditional practice. Worse yet, the congregation also assumes sin of the baser sort as the reason for the excommunication.
Secondly, any kind of sin can be cause for RCD because sin really isn’t the issue; the sin is merely the result of the person’s view of redemption—fix his/her’s view of redemption, and Jesus will start obeying for them—problem solved. Furthermore, since redemption is the goal, elders who practice RCD can also (so they think) bring non-members into the process because the church has a mandate from Christ to make disciples of all nations. Therefore, a parishioner who pretends to be converted to NCGSS in order to escape a church without being disfellowshipped can still be excommunicated if they tattle on the elders to existing members after they leave. In fact, this has happened.
Lastly, this puts counselees in a very precarious situation. Many churches who are NANC certified practice RCD. Basically, counselees can find themselves held hostage at a church via threat of public humiliation. This ministry is aware of many testimonies accordingly: people being placed in RDC for tithing issues, priority issues—you name it, while discussion of this form of discipline is nowhere to found. A more vile consideration is marriage counseling where one spouse accepts Gospel Sanctification and the other spouse doesn’t—resulting in the conclusion that it is a mixed marriage (believer/unbeliever). This of course, puts the marriage in a very dangerous circumstance.
Would proponents of NC like to deny this? Well then, simply answer this question: “Why do you call it “redemptive” church discipline? Isn’t the word, “redemption” a little strong when we are talking about reconciliation? Please explain, and for once without hiding behind the word, “gospel.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
8 comments