“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 8: A Note to the Misled Sheep
When you go to the 2011 TGC in Chicago, you will here a lot of GS / Sonship mantras that criticize “living by lists,” “living by do’s and don’ts,” “being God’s man, not a lawman,” “serving God out of duty,” “obeying in your own efforts [what they mean is any effort on your part at all is an attempt to obey God without depending on him],” etc., etc., etc. All the red herrings aside (no Christian advocates a grueling, joyless sanctification, but neither do we say it is always joyful), here is an article by Craig W. Booth that rightly divides the word: http://thefaithfulword.org/2006marchblogarchives.html#1a
A very edifying read—thanks to the reader who shared it.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 7: The 5 Points of Your New Calvinist Arrogance
Point One. Your Name: It insinuates that you’re the new and improved version of “old” Calvinism. Which is not only arrogant, but a lie as well.
Point Two. Your apologetics: You believe that you preach the only true gospel. One example would be what Michael Horton wrote on page 62 of “Christless Christianity” where he states that any separation of justification and sanctification results in the lose of BOTH. The synthesis of the two is the crux of the New Calvinist gospel.
Point Three. Your hermeneutic: One of your mantras plainly states how ALL people approach the Bible. The judgment is that NOBODY approaches the Bible with an open mind. One of your haughty teachers states it this way, “How we answer the question must be shaped and limited by the word of God. But we approach the word of God with assumptions, presuppositions, biases, historical understandings, and personal filters. None of us come to the word as empty slates; we have ‘tilts’ that may or may not be known to us.” And I will give you three wild guesses as to who can lead us in the right direction! Basically, New Calvinist leaders teach their followers that they have an inability to properly ascertain truth; or at the very least, should ALWAYS be in doubt of what they have read or studied. As I have said before and will say again, this shows New Calvinism’s kinship to postmodern thought which devalues the ability to know absolute truth absolutely. But more to the point, it dogmatically proclaims a restriction on the ability of others to understand the word of God on their own.
Point Four. Your Theology: Your view of law and gospel states that you are “free” from the law while EVERY other Christian who believes the law has a role in sanctification is still IN BONDAGE, ie., you are free and we are still in bondage. Gag, it’s not only arrogant, it’s also a lie.
Point Five: Your eschatology: You have informed Christ that He has low self-esteem, and you have fixed that for Him by making every verse in the Bible about Him and deemphasizing “an issue about a sliver of geography that eclipses Christ.” How dismayed you will be when he doesn’t thank you at the judgment.
paul
“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
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 1: Saving Dr. Mohler [From the past, but I still had my sense of humor.]
Dr. Mohler,
Thank you for your prompt response to my open letter, http://wp.me/pmd7S-ww . Your response stated the following:
“I received and read with interest your letter received in my office on February 14, 2011. I appreciate your concern to uphold biblical doctrine, but I cannot recognize in your letter the beliefs of anyone that I know.
I stand for and teach the doctrine historically held by Southern Baptist and in complete accordance with our denominational confessions of faith.
I do appreciate your concern for the biblical fidelity and pray that God will always protect his church from error.”
Dr. Mohler, I fear that I have dropped the ball by not opening all of my mail sooner because of the following: you don’t know anyone who holds to the doctrine described in my letter, but you will soon be attending the 2011Gospel Coalition conference in Chicago. In order to protect your innocence, I am going to inform you of some of the men who will be there that you don’t know. Also, their pictures can be viewed here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/conferences/2011/#speakers so you will know them if or when you see them.
First, let’s review the primary concern expressed in my letter concerning Sonship theology:
“In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed ‘Sonship Theology’…. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, ‘We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.’ In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999 [correction: 1996]. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
‘This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life…It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.’”
First, let me also warn you that the Gospel Coalition could be promoting this doctrine as an organization. I’m sure you wouldn’t associate with them if you were aware of that, unless you, in fact, support the doctrine also, but that’s impossible because you said you didn’t know anyone who believes in Sonship theology. So, in regard to my first concern, let’s consider this excerpt from my letter: “[The doctrine] maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
On the Gospel Coalition website, their Confessional Statement is entitled “The Gospel for All of Life.” Hmmm, kinda sounds like “….the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.” They also say this in the same statement: “We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Evangelism or the unsaved is not the object of this sentence, “churches” are. And how will they have “new hope” and “compelling joy”? By “….grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Kinda sounds like “…maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error….and…. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification.”
But without further ado, let me caution you regarding those who you don’t know that will be at the conference.
Please look out for this guy; he will be there, and his name is David Powlison. Recently, he conducted a seminar at John Piper’s church and told the audience that Jack Miller was his mentor. He then proceeded to complain that Jay Adams criticized Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves.” However, he forgot to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book. Maybe Dr. Powlison doesn’t agree with his “mentor” concerning Sonship theology, but then why would he criticize Adams for criticizing the Sonship mantra? Don’t know, but maybe if you meet him at the conference, you could ask. Let me know.
The next guy is Tim Keller. Please note his picture at the aforementioned link. He will be there also. He is well known as a Sonship advocate / teacher. In a post entitled, “Seven Rivers Church: a sonship home,” a pastor wrote the following:
“I’m somewhat new to the PCA and I’m still finding out many of the denominations strengths. One strength I’ve been blessed by is her sonship pastoral theology. Sonship is a brand of theology that places a great deal of emphasis on the saving benefits we have in Christ as redeemed children of God [that’s subtle]. It’s not afraid to talk about duty or commands of obedience that we are responsible for [that is—in its “gospel context”] but it does so from the vantage point of Christ redeeming work [right, like I said, in its “gospel context”]. It takes sin seriously but grace and transformation even more seriously [because we’re totally depraved and can’t keep the law anyway]. You can find Sonship theology in many churches in the PCA – such as New Life Churches in Philadelphia, Redeemer in NYC, and Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL.
Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary [that’s not my understanding, but for sure it came from Westminster and not the Bible], came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller [that would be Jack Miller], rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF [David Powlison], entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s [he will be at the conference] 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)” http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/seven-rivers-church-a-sonship-home
Actually, I picked that quote but a google search with “Tim Keller—sonship” will produce a wealth of documentation connecting him to Sonship theology. I like the above quote because it mentions other names and gives me the opportunity to point out that many respected leaders in the PCA rejected Sonship and stand against it. One example can be noted here:
http://eastwoodchurch.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=1
I have a great idea; when you meet Tim Keller, ask him what Sonship theology has in common with The Gospel Coalition. If you can, let me know.
Next is Tullian Tchividjian. He will be there also. He said the following on The Gospel Coalition blog:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. The gospel, in other words, isn’t just the power of God to save you; it’s the power of God to grow you once you’re saved. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day.”
Is it just me? I think many Southern Baptist would have a problem with that statement.
Be careful at that conference Dr. Mohler. I could list many more but they’re pretty soft targets—being Charismatics, postmoderns, and those who believe in baptismal regeneration and such. Which brings up one last question: Is it true that those doctrinal considerations are now secondary to “getting the gospel right”? If you can, let me know.
paul
No, No, No, Paul Washer Doesn’t Think You’re Lost Because of That, He Thinks you’re Lost Because You’re an Evangelical
I know this is all surreal, so let’s backup and take a look at what orthodox Christians believe. In what Dr. Harold L. Wilmington called “One of the best outlined, one-volume books on theology in print,” Floyd Barackman, a Reformed Baptist, writes the following on regeneration: “This concerns our being made spiritually alive and our having a new relationship with God” (Practical Christian Theology p.315). On justification, he writes:” Justification is the act of God whereby He acquits the gospel believer of the divine verdict of condemnation and declares him to be righteous. The unsaved person’s need for justification is seen in his condemnation by God and his lack of acceptable righteousness” (p.303).
While Barackman has plenty to say in the book about election (which he strongly advocates), he states the following regarding the practical application of regeneration: “Being members of God’s family and subjects of His kingdom (Jn. 1:12; Col. 1:13), we have the duty of learning His will and truth (Eph. 5:17; Ps. 1:1-3), walking in His will and fellowship (1Jn. 1:17), depending upon His provision and care (yet, He will not do for us what we can do for ourselves, 1Pet. 5:7; Mt. 6:8, 25-34), and yielding to His discipline (Heb. 121-15).
Dr. Jay E. Adams, who has received his share of criticism over the years, but has never been accused of being unorthodox as far as I know, writes the following in his critique of Sonship theology (GS’s mother) on page 35 of Biblical Sonship regarding regeneration: “Though the Spirit produces fruit, He does it through, and not apart from, human effort (which He initiates and sustains). This is clear from the fact that Christians themselves are commanded to become involved in the ‘pursuit of fruit’—the very same fruit that is said to be the fruit of the Spirit [let me add this to Jay’s statement: one of the fruits of the Spirit is self-control]. This pursuit is real, involving biblical study and struggles with sin that issue in failures and successes.”
It is not my intention to write a book here, though one could, but I would also add some quotations from JC Ryle on this subject:
“But surely the Scriptures teach us that in following holiness the true Christian needs personal exertion and work as well as faith….in justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification [to set apart through regeneration] the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse” (Scriptural Holiness: Introduction).
Bottom line: a colaboring with God and man in regeneration has been the orthadox view from the beginning: “….and we sent Timothy, our brother and God’s coworker in the gospel of Christ, to establish and exhort you in your faith” (1Thess. 3:2 ESV). “For we are God’s fellow workers. You are God’s field, God’s building” (1Cor. 3:9 ESV).
Now enter “New Calvinism,” driven primarily by Gospel Sanctification or Sonship theology. It teaches sanctification and regeneration by faith alone. And: holds that any belief of colaboring in regeneration is the same as colaboring in justification. Granted, working for our legal decree (justification) from God is a huge problem because in order for that to be true, God would have to agree with us that we have the same righteousness Christ has based on our own efforts. This, of course, is an absurd notion, and damning.
But let’s be clear: GS proponents believe that the orthodox view of dependant colaboring in regeneration is synonymous with a colaboring for justification which is works salvation and a false gospel. They also believe that we are regenerated by contemplating the same gospel that saved us, over, and over, again. In the same way that we were saved by faith and repentance alone, we can only be regenerated by faith and repentance alone like we were for justification. This basic belief leads to all kinds of questionable theology, like the total depravity of the saints. Think about it, if you need the gospel everyday just as much as you did when you were saved, you must be no better than you were in regard to spiritual life before salvation, right? In fact, advocates of GS often insinuate that we are resaved daily, or each time we repent. Michael Horton has said that we only receive spiritual life when we “experience the gospel afresh.” Listen to me please, this doctrine is a serious departure from orthodoxy; God’s people must arise and confront it. Again, Adams writes the following on page 36 of Biblical Sonship: “Plainly, the error of substituting justification for regeneration (quickening) is at the heart of the difficulty that Sonship [and Gospel Sanctification] presents to the Christian. It fails to explain what God has done for him in making him a new creation and how he may conform to the will of God.”
Now, regarding Paul Washer. It would seem that the main thrust of his preaching is against easy believe-ism—Christians who make a profession of faith and don’t repent of anything. It would seem as such, but that’s not true. Washer, a Baptist (Southern, I think), as I am also, doesn’t believe that even “15% of my Baptist brethren are saved.” But easy believe-ism is NOT really the issue with Washer as many suppose: his real issue echoes all the other GS advocates; their issue is the separation of justification and sanctification being a false gospel. Supposedly, that’s why the vast majority of evangelicals are lost. Hence, we have the arrogant mentality on display that men like Washer are on the cutting edge of a new, radical reformation—add nausea. This is the idea put forth by John Piper in the video, The Gospel in 6 Minutes. Not to be outdone, Washer has a video out named The Gospel in 5 Minutes. The theme of both are the same; these men are modern-day Noahians preaching doom to the masses, gag. The fact that Michael Horton’s ministry is named, “Modern Reformation” is no accident as well.
I have written extensively in order to make my case for Piper and Horton, now I will state my case for Washer. In the statement of faith posted on the Heart Cry Missionary Society website of which Washer is the director, regarding regeneration, we read the following: “Regeneration is a change of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, who makes alive those who are dead in trespasses and sins, enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the Word of God, and renewing their whole nature, so that they love and practice holiness. It is a work of God’s free and special grace alone.”
Note that this statement clearly says that regeneration is God’s work “alone.” Also note that the ongoing work of regeneration is for salvation: “savingly.” Furthermore, in Washer’s Gospel 101, he states the following:
“In this simple phrase, we find a truth that must be rediscovered by all of us. The Gospel is not merely an introductory message to Christianity. It is “the” message of Christianity, and it is not only the means of salvation, but also the means of continued sanctification in the life of the most mature believer.”
Uh, need I say more? Therefore, many things that Washer says that could be taken different ways must be interpreted through his theology. For instance, he says in The Gospel in 5 Minutes that Christians must continue in “faith and repentance.” If you didn’t know his theology, you would think: “Yes I agree, true Christians will continue to demonstrate the fruit of faith in God and the practice of 1John 1:9 (as well as other things that I am sure he would include, that statement is just a thumbnail sketch of perseverance).” But in fact, he is talking about faith and repentance only as a way of yielding to the Spirit for purposes of Christ obeying for us. Remember, he said regeneration is a work of God “ALONE.” Right? However, one might keep in mind that Christ clearly made a distinction between 1John 1:9 repentance and repentance unto salvation (John 13: 8-11).
Washer’s passion and his missionary works do not impress me; it is a zeal that is not according to knowledge. He plainly teaches a false doctrine and should be rejected by Christians at large.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments