The New Calvinist Agenda: Take Over All of the Church With COGOUS
A New Calvinist takeover is coming to a church near you—probably yours. Is that a good thing? Well, think with me: they think the original doctrine of the Reformation was lost shortly after it made its impact. And, it was recently rediscovered by men like John Piper. In fact, Piper doesn’t think most of us are really “ready” for the recently rediscovered Reformation that is “ongoing.” Do you doubt that? Well then, let’s pause to watch the following video:
You see, that’s why New Calvinists like Al Mohler aren’t honest about what they really believe—us poor ignorant souls are not “ready” for the whole truth yet. Bless his heart, in a letter to me last year, he lied to me and said he didn’t know anyone who believes what I described. Al was just looking out for me until am “ready.”
Who rediscovered the lost doctrine of the Reformation? Answer: a Seventh-day Adventist who is now purported to be an atheist. Of course, they don’t tell the truth about that either. Most of us Bible thumping evangelicals don’t have sense enough to know that God would use such a person to rediscover the “lost Reformation doctrine” of the centrality of the gospel completely outside of us. We just aren’t “ready” for that yet. Do you doubt that? Keeping in mind that the project headed by this man was called the Australian Forum, and their theological journal was named Present Truth, consider this statement by well-known Presbyterian John H. Armstrong:
The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.
Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.
In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high…. I do not believe that the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith can be overstated. We are once again in desperate need of recovery. Darkness has descended upon the evangelical world in North America and beyond, much as it had upon the established sixteenth-century church (The Highway blog: Article of the Month, Sola Fide: Does It Really Matter?; Dr. John H. Armstrong).
Truly, Armstrong is one of the New Calvinists that talks too much. It must drive those other guys crazy. But the survey he talked about in Present Truth can be seen in the following illustration and denotes the basics of the Forum’s thesis: COGOUS. Basically, it teaches that the new birth is not part of the gospel and that all of the gospel’s power is completely outside of us. Before we get to the illustration, do you doubt that? Well then, consider these quotes by New Calvinists and members of the Australian Forum:
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
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.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
And let’s tie this in with the video that we watched as well:
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this “upside down” gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants.
~ John Piper
Now consider these illustrations from the Forum’s theological journal:
These men are out to save the church, and you had better not get in their way. The takeover mentality was ignited by this amazing “rediscovery” and fueled by visions of grandeur and the egos of men. “Founders Ministries” was an organization founded in 1982 for the sole purpose of taking over the Southern Baptist Convention with this doctrine. CCEF successfully took over NANC and formed the “Biblical Counseling Coalition” to finish the job of taking over what’s left of biblical counseling organizations.
This year’s “Together for the Gospel” (T4G) convention is not geared for individual spiritual growth, but for individuals who are dissatisfied with their church! They will be indoctrinated at the conference and sent back to their local congregations with the supposed answer to the dilemma: the lost Reformation! Observe the following T4G promo:
Of course, this is playing on the real problem in today’s churches and why they are dead—living by biblical generalities and an unwillingness to align with biblical truth at all cost. Another aspect is “stupid obedience” verses “intelligent obedience.” Learn about intelligent obedience here: http://www.nouthetic.org/
Got a sick church? Trust me, Dr. Kevorkian isn’t the answer.
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 25; Southwood Members Speak Out, and My Testimony
Published with permission:
Paul,
I came across your blog today when doing a google search for Southwood Presbyterian. It is heartbreaking when the first link that pops up regarding your church is one (of like 23 posts) regarding the takeover of your church by “New Calvinism”. I’ve been a member of Southwood for [deleted by me] and right now we are being awakened. Southwood is in serious trouble. However, the larger battle (that of New Calvinism) and the integrity of the church is what is really at stake. I don’t know what you can do if anything, however, we are contacting anyone possible in an attempt for help. The governmental system of the Presbyterian church, designed to protect us, is now being used as a weapon. Our dissenting elders are being threatened with church discipline if they speak against Jean Lerroux and his order. This week a vote is being forced on the matter. The “Session” (I put that in quotes to reflect the fact that it is far from the full Session and primarily from the Lerroux order) sent out a biased letter to persuade the congregation to vote on keeping Lerroux. [unique verbal expression deleted by me] they’re even ordering the checking of photo IDs at the door. I know it’s not [unique verbal expression deleted by me], but I never in my life thought I’d be presenting my ID as I entered church. I’ve attached the letter for your review.
I fully believe it is too late for Southwood. This has our attention now though; we aren’t going to give up. But this cannot be allowed to spread. The Church of Christ and its integrity is preeminent. I don’t know who you are or who you know but maybe you can help. Do me a favor and scrub my email (ie don’t forward it). I’d like to keep the wolves off a few more days.
Dear Southwood member,
Unless Lerroux is sent packing, the wicked actions of these men will be a memorial on this blog for all of the days it appears. And then some via published PDFs.
Commented on PPT January 23, 2012:
Paul – Our elders are responsible for all that has happened. They had plans in place before JL was even known. Their pride and arrogance is beyond comprehension. They have restructured the diaconate so they all have responsibilities that fall under the over-site of staff – which are non-ordained in some cases and a clear violation of the Book of Church Order – but they only refer to the BCO when it supports their position. Power and control is the God they are embracing. They don’t even trust the diaconate enough to let them do their work as the bible and BCO direct. They don’t trust in what God has prescribed. They know how to promise correction to appease the congregation in heated moments but then never deliver on their promises. In this week’s hoopla of hooplas, they are pushing for a congregational vote without any of the truth getting out to the congregation, which gives them the best chance to survive and win the church. I suspect they will then leave our denomination and take a beautiful church facility with them. This way they will not have to answer to anyone else. But ….. they will answer to God. It is all in His hands. Thank you for bearing the constant burden of heralding such painful truths for others to read and discern for themselves.
“They had plans in place before JL was even known.” Right, a couple of New Calvinists got on the Session and then they went looking for a New Calvinist pastor. And of course, the other elders had no clue as to what New Calvinism is. After all, it didn’t even have a label until 2008. The “Sonship” label was mostly dropped in 2000 because Jay Adams and Van Dixhoorn shot it full of holes. When folks caught on to the fact that Sonship had gone underground, it was dubbed “Gospel Sanctification” in 2004.
This is like most New Calvinist hostile takeovers. In the situation I was in, the pastor presented himself as a traditional grammatical-historical guy, but the front doors of the church had barley hit the former pastor in the backside before his preaching became radically different. Many people left without having a clue as to what was going on—they just knew something wasn’t right. But what a shame to have to leave a church without knowing why! I at least wanted to know why. It was the only church my children ever knew and I was a former elder there. We were members there twenty years, and I was unwittingly instrumental in the pastor obtaining the pastor/teacher position.
Once he got in, he started bringing in acquaintances from other churches that shared this same doctrine (about five families from a particular church across town). They began to plan a takeover behind the scenes. Unknown to the rest of the congregation, sitting elders were being strong-armed. In fact, one fled the state. Another man who wasn’t an elder, but was a notable leader in the church, fled the state as well. You must understand this: to a Reformed Baptist, church discipline is death, and these were respected men.
Church discipline is a scarlet letter that follows you the rest of your life. Praise to our awesome God, they have done to me all that they can do. Out of the situation, I was able to salvage a relationship with my son that they also tried to take from me, slandering me to him and showering him with gifts; for example, a laptop. He now lives with Susan and me. Before I parted ways with that church, and after they realized I figured out what they were doing, they offered to pay for my fire system design degree. I knew what they were doing and declined. Shortly thereafter, they began to drive a wedge between my wife and me. In fact, they instructed her to give them personal files from my computer and report to them who I was associating with. They were particularly intimidated by my relationship with the elder that had fled the state. My wife was instructed to read our emails. I know this because my wife would print the documents, and write copious notes on them before she passed them on to the elders. I found document copies that she had retained for herself that were in draft stage and never completed, but with notes on them. Catch my drift?
So, without writing a book, let me say that New Calvinists have done everything to me they can do; therefore, my message to them is, “Bring it!”
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 24; Southwood Under Siege
Susan and I read the letter posted on the Southwood website that was written by the “elders” of Southwood. We were undismayed by certain parts of it because of what we know of like situations, and didn’t know how much of the letter would be perceived as normal among Presbyterians. Now we know. Not very much would be deemed normal and our déjà vu (no pun intended) inklings were confirmed.
I’m not going to say how we know, but we are not totally on the outside looking in, and it’s bad. Bottom line: New Calvinists are mean people. As I have said before and I will say again, “They are terrorists dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers.”
The beginning of the letter was indicative of the usual heavy-handed leadership style of New Calvinists:
Following months of discussion about concerns and questions brought before our church last Fall, particularly regarding our Senior Pastor and his continued service at Southwood, the Session has voted to call a congregational meeting on Sunday, January 29, 2012 for the purpose of voting on the following motion:
“The congregation of Southwood Presbyterian Church requests that Providence Presbytery dissolve the pastoral relationship between Jean F. Larroux, III and Southwood Presbyterian Church.”
The motion is written in the negative because our constitution does not allow for a ‘vote of confidence’ or re-affirmation. The call of a pastor is considered binding until such time as it might be rescinded. During the same Session meeting where this congregational meeting was called, our Elders also voted on the issue of their support for Jean Larroux. All men voted by secret ballot to allow each and every Elder to freely vote his conscience. The result of their vote was a clear and decisive majority in support of our Senior Pastor and against this motion. The recommendation of the Session to you as a congregation is that you should vote against this motion and in doing so you will be voting in favor of Jean Larroux remaining as our Senior Pastor.
This is a big change from a couple of months ago when things seemed to be moving away from a vote on dissolving Southwood’s relationship with Larroux, and those in favor of such a movement seemed to have been shamed by the Session:
Last evening the Session of Southwood Presbyterian Church met again to consider the matters before the church. After much prayer from both the members of the Session and members of the congregation the Lord provided a decision with no dissension or abstention. The UNANIMOUS motion reads as follows:
With repentance and conviction over our own personal and corporate sin, particularly for having stirred dissension with a premature motion delivered after Monday night’s meeting, the Session has met and deliberated further on the issues before our church. Having considered the breadth of the situation and our unified desire for the peace and purity of the church, the Session does hereby revise the purpose of the called congregational meeting to begin addressing the myriad of issues brought before us, including Jean F. Larroux, III, but we are not recommending the dissolution of the pastoral relationship with him at this meeting. Furthermore, we are in need of, thankful for and desirous to have further prayer from the congregation in all our deliberations.
In other words, some of the Southwood parishioners have an intestinal fortitude that would enable them to eat jalapeno peppers straight from the vine. It is amazing that this thing has gotten this far without outside help from the Presbyter and local pastors. Unfortunately, that’s not going to happen. Trust me, parishioners who dare raise a stink about truth are expendable for the sake of comfortable lunches at Applebee’s and golf outings. That’s why they get together for therapy sessions every now and then to convince themselves that they really care about the truth—it’s called a pastors conference.
Much could be discussed here, including some paragraphs in the letter that seem to be designed to deliberately cause confusion about the vote, but it is clear from the letter that some elders and several parishioners have serious problems with Larroux’s theology. The Session is clearly using this letter to brush all of that aside and bully the congregation. Much could also be said about the procedure that will take place in regard to the vote; it is obviously designed to intimidate. Look, I’m not going to bang a lot of keys on this—the Session knows that there is a big difference in Larroux’s theology and orthodoxy—his sermons are obviously first degree theological felonies in broad daylight. The Session thinks they have the votes—truth isn’t the issue.
I don’t know what’s going to happen on January 29, but I hereby offer my blog to all Southwood parishioners to comment on the record, off the record, anonymously or otherwise, as guest writers, etc. There is a “SGM Survivors.com,” there can just as well be a “Southwood Survivors.com.” Their vote will either turn the tide against New Calvinist takeovers, or their loss will stand as a monument and warning to other churches. I can go away on January 29th, or I can add a page to my blog—either way.
Why I’m I doing this? Because I don’t like bullies, liars, and false teachers. That’s why. I just have no tolerance for them. And besides, one legendary Presbyterian said that this doctrine “must be exposed and halted.” Just doing my part.
paul
Why New Calvinism is Works Salvation and a False Gospel
“So, as long as we don’t, ‘move on to something else’ we don’t ‘lose both.’ What does ‘lose‘ mean?”
I’m going to keep saying it: any doctrine that fuses justification and sanctification together is necessarily a false gospel. Sanctification does not complete justification, and sanctification does not link justification to glorification. That is why Romans 8:30 is stated the way it is. Salvation is a finished work by God alone before the foundation of the Earth and it guarantees glorification. Nothing that you do in sanctification can change that.
New Calvinism fuses justification and sanctification together. This is not even arguable; for, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you.” Here is where New Calvinism goes the way of many other works salvation systems: they erroneously make a false dichotomy between mental activity and physical effort. They think this makes the fusion of justification and sanctification possible because mental activity is supposedly not a work.
Hence, we can keep our salvation by NOT “trying to please God in our own efforts or in our own strength.” So how do we do that? Oh, sorry, rather, “What does that look like” (as if looking isn’t a human activity either). Answer: by contemplating more on the gospel instead of making an effort to do something because contemplation supposedly doesn’t qualify as a human activity. Instead of NOT “trying harder and doing more” we need to “contemplate more and contemplate harder.” Searching the Scriptures in search of “pictures of Jesus” is supposedly not human activity or works either.
But ANYTHING we participate in to MAINTAIN our justification IS works salvation. Indicative of this fusion is the belief that we can lose our salvation. The fusion of justification and sanctification is always coupled with the idea that we can lose our salvation; the two are mutually inclusive. If we can lose our salvation, what do we have to do to keep it? For New Calvinism, the answer is: nothing in our own effort. Salvation by Christ plus doing nothing except for contemplation. For you folks old enough to remember, it’s salvation by Bachman—Turner Overdrive theology: “we work hard at doing nothing all day.” But that is still something that we participate in to maintain our salvation.
Of course, New Calvinists would vehemently deny this, but their teachings often imply, well, “implicit” is really a better word—that we need to perform tasks to maintain our salvation daily. Am I kidding? Well, if words really mean things, no! In Paul David Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Theological Seminary in the Spring of 2008 entitled “Playing With The Box,” he plainly stated that Romans 7:24 referred to a “daily rescue.” You do the math.
In “Christless Christianity” by Michael Horton on page 62, he states the following:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.
We Christians are dependent on what at every moment? Answer: the same thing that the unregenerate are dependent on. For what? Answer: spiritual life. How often? Answer: “not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh.” What happens if we “move on to something else”? Answer: “we lose both.” Both what? Answer: obviously, both justification and sanctification. So, as long as we don’t, “move on to something else” we don’t “lose both.” What does “lose” mean?
Yet another example is a comment on The Gospel Coalition blog in regard to an article written by Tullian Tchividjian:
It’s not that complicated: the ground of all Christian obedience is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Justification occurs EACH time a believer confesses and receives forgiveness for his sins. The pattern of justification is illustrated by Paul in Romans 4. Abraham believes in the God who justifies the ungodly (in this case gentile Abraham), David is forgiven for his adultery and murder. God’s condemnation for sin has reached into history at the cross, glorification has reached into history at conversion where believers experience a foretaste of glory. Neither Old or New Covenant obedience require moral perfection, they both require obedience of faith….so, having been justified from faithfulness we have peace with God!
I have quoted this example in many articles, resulting in TGC pulling the comment down. However, for some reason they thought the following comment by NCT guru Chad Bresson on the same post is more subtle:
I usually take it a half-step back further in the indicative, including Christ’s life, death, and resurrection. The indicative isn’t simply our position in Christ, but is (more importantly) Christ for us. IOW, not only should we be encouraging our people to become who they already are in Christ Jesus, we must be reminding them of what He has already been and done for them. We *do* the imperatives, not simply because of who we are in our union with Him, but because Christ has already done the imperatives on our behalf because we couldn’t. When I can’t do any given imperative perfectly (failing miserably), I rest in the One who has. Christ’s imputed active obedience is never far from the indicative-imperative rhythm of the Pauline ethic.
Obviously, if obedience in sanctification was imputed to us as part of the atonement, then any attempt by us to obey in sanctification is a denial of the gospel. If at any time in our Christian life we believe that we must put forth effort—that’s works salvation. Instead, we must continue to believe in a supposed salvation by doing nothing which is really Christ plus doing nothing, but is something because it is doing nothing for the purpose of maintaining our salvation because justification and sanctification are fused.
And this of course leads to total confusion among Christians, and I believe a built-in intent of don’t you dare try sanctification at home because it could (as John Piper states it): “imperil your soul.” We supposedly need these spiritual brainiacs to guide us through the very tricky business of deciphering what is works salvation and what isn’t. Good luck with that.
This is the problem you get into when you try to toy with God’s law and its relationship to the gospel. It’s not only antinomianism, but it also tampers with salvation and the true gospel.
paul
What Exactly is New Calvinism? Its Five Major Tenets and Their Sources
The Core Four of the Australian Forum
In1970, a think tank was initiated to systematize the “lost Reformation doctrine of justification.” The project was the brainchild of Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-day Adventist theologian. Their theological journal was “Present Truth Magazine.” Brinsmead came from a family of respected Adventist theologians, and was active in the “justification debate” within Adventism.
He was joined by two Anglican theologians, Geoffrey Paxton and Graeme Goldsworthy. Clearly, Paxton was enamored by an Adventist motif that presented Adventism as the gatekeepers of Reformation doctrine. This is a major theme of his book, “The Shaking of Adventism.” Goldsworthy was a proponent of “Biblical Theology,” or “Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics” which has deep roots in neo-orthodoxy and modernist theology. Neo-orthodoxy and Modernism are the products of liberal, philosophical theology that was born among European philosophers and theologians (primarily in Germany). Biblical Theology was invented by the liberal theologian Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), and was later remodeled by philosopher/theologian Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949). Many consider Graeme Goldsworthy as the one who has taken the torch forward from Vos.
The clear, stated goal of the Forum was to systematize Reformation doctrine to prevent it from being lost again (ref. p. 34 The Truth About New Calvinism). The Forum was later joined by Jon Zens who discovered the Forum through Present Truth which was widely distributed at Westminster Seminary where Zens was a student. Zens was deeply concerned with the relationship between law and gospel and how the two related to covenants.
The Unifying Central Crux
And all agreed on one thing: the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone had been lost because of subjectivism, ie., the Bible being interpreted through personal experience. They all agreed that Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialist theology was indicative, and at the very crux of what caused Reformation doctrine to be lost. Existentialism teaches that truth becomes truth for an individual when he accepts it as such according to his/her own experience (very subjective, iffy, fuzzy). The Forum believed that Rome/Protestantism set a tsunami of subjectivism into motion through emphasizing the new birth which supposedly encouraged existentialism-like doctrines. The Forum believed that ALL doctrine can be divided into two categories: Reformation or Romanism, and most of Protestantism ended up following Rome’s subjective gospel based on personal experience. Volume 25 of Present Truth Magazine dealt with the Forum’s view on this and included an article written by Zens on Existentialism.
The Cure: Tenet One; COGOUS
Brinsmead’s first theological frame that launched Progressive Adventism (the “Awakening” movement) taught that Christ stands in the judgment for us as opposed to the traditional Adventist view that Christians are enabled by God to obtain perfection in order to stand in the judgment. For lack of a better way of stating it; subconsciously, many Adventist weren’t buying it. The whole idea that Christ stands in our place and presents His righteousness for us in the judgment was exceedingly good news.
Brinsmead was afforded credibility across denominational lines because he supposedly came to this conclusion by studying Reformation doctrine, and the results seemed to speak for themselves. Everybody, especially Reformed folks, wanted to jump on the Brinsmead bandwagon. Present Truth was the most publicized theological journal of that time, and at least one edition printed one million copies.
Of course, the basic defect in comparison to orthodoxy is the view that there will be a future judgment for Christians in regard to maintaining our justification, which is already a settled matter. As an aside, one wonders if this defect is by design—if our justification is already a settled matter, what do we need pricy theologians for? A judgment to determine our rewards lowers the bar considerably.
But Brinsmead’s second theological frame (a tweaking of the first in regard to some eschatological issues, ie., when does the judgment occur in redemptive history?) settled the subjectivism issue as well as being found truly righteous at the judgment: the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us (COGOUS). This taught that we have NO righteousness in, and of ourselves for purposes of justification, and that all truth must be based on the gospel that is outside of us without regard to personal experience. But remember, just like the Romanism it despised (and the Adventism that it was enamored by), the Forum saw sanctification as a process that maintains and completes justification, or a road that links justification and glorification. So, COGOUS applied to both justification and sanctification. The doctrine was illustrated by the Forum using the following visual aid in volume 21 of Present Truth:
Therefore, the gospel was the measure of all truth, and all objective truth had to come from outside of us. All change had to come from outside of us as well. Christ does NOT do His work INSIDE of us. All New Calvinist thought begins with this premise. If Christ works within us, this makes us colaborers in justification so that we can be found righteous at the judgment. It is also seen as “emptying ourselves” and “dying to self.” It is anti-existentialism on steroids. But not really; as we will see, this objective puritanism leads to a hyper-subjectivism that characterizes New Calvinism.
Element One of COGOUS: Gospel Sanctification
The term “Gospel Sanctification,” was coined by this ministry in 2004 and picked up by others. COGOUS split into two notable theologies in the 80’s: New Covenant Theology and Sonship Theology. Both endured a violent push back among Baptists and Presbyterians to the point of going underground. “Sonship Theology” became “Gospel Transformation.” The movement functioned for ten years without a name; and in fact, experienced astronomical growth during that time. Based on the slogans, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day,” slogans that show its undisputable kinship to COGOUS, “Gospel Sanctification” became a useful tool for identifying the doctrine. Gospel Sanctification is the subject of “Another Gospel” which was never published. The movement was dubbed, “New Calvinism” in 2008.
Element Two of COGOUS: Gospel Contemplationism
Spiritual contemplationism is certainly nothing new. Spiritual growth via contemplating the works of Christ, and using the Bible to do so can be found among the earliest Adventist theologians, especially Ellen White (according to citations noted by Paxton in The Shaking of Adventism). White was always in the thick of trying to reconcile Adventist perfectionism with grace and law. Sanctification by Gospel Contemplationism has always been an apt companion for doctrines that want to reduce the role of the Christian to the lowest common denominator. Most of these ideas came from European philosophers posing as theologians. Gospel Contemplationism, like Gospel Sanctification, puts feet on the doctrine.
Tenet Two: Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics
Starting with Gabler, this hermeneutic (method of interpretation) makes the Bible a historical narrative about the gospel. Through deeper and deeper knowledge of the gospel, we are “wowed” and “motivated by gratitude.” This makes the Bible a perfect tool for contemplationism rather than instruction and propositional truth. Redemptive Historical hermeneutics, or “Biblical Theology” has its origin in Modernism and neo-orthodox theology. This may seem contradictory to New Calvinism’s supposed stance against existentialism, but this method actually leads to all kinds of subjectivism because a gospel interpretation is forced upon the whole Bible.
Tenet Three: New Covenant Theology
Jon Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981. Brinsmead and Zens worked together closely on how law and covenants relate to COGOUS. New Calvinists usually stay aloof from any association to NCT because of its direct link to Zens and the Forum. Though New Calvinists are not shy about playing the “all truth is God’s truth” card, they would rather not have to explain how their doctrine was contrived by a Seventh-day Adventist who is now purported to be an atheist. DA Carson is a good example of a New Calvinists that gives hefty support to NCT while pretending to be merely sympathetic to some of its tenets. Founders Ministries, a SBC organization founded in the early 80’s for the sole purpose of taking over the convention via COGOUS (and falsely associating the doctrine with a well-known Southern Baptist theologian), even claims to be anti-NCT. Founders Ministries has also been challenged to explain their claim that they published “In Defense of the Decalogue” which is a treatise against NCT.
Tenet Four: Heart Theology
This theology was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which forms the basis of counseling curriculum at Westminster Seminary. The doctrine is based on Sonship Theology—Powlison specifically stated that as fact while giving a presentation at John Piper’s church. Powlison also stated that Gospel Sanctification (not the exact terminology he used) was the primary difference between his counseling philosophy and that of Jay Adams. In other words—a fundamental difference in how they interpret the gospel. See chapter 9 of “The Truth About New Calvinism.” How People Change, written by Paul David Tripp (an understudy of Powlison), is a treatise on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change, and practically a word for word recital of COGOUS.
In the tradition of New Calvinism’s takeover mentality, CCEF now controls almost all of the major counseling organizations, and the Biblical Counseling Coalition was recently organized to aid in that purpose.
Tenet Five: Christian Hedonism
This was concocted by John Piper in the 80’s as an important addition to COGOUS. Though Piper avoids any connections to the Forum like the Bubonic Plague, he showed his hand and specific allegiance to COGOUS when he wrote an article on a series of lectures that Graeme Goldsworthy did at Southern Seminary. See chapter 4 of The Truth About New Calvinism.
Before Piper attended Fuller Seminary, which advocated neo-orthodoxy during the time he attended there (they even hosted appearances by Karl Barth, the contemporary father of neo-orthodoxy), he majored in philosophical literature. Immediately upon graduating from Fuller in 1971, he went to Germany to study under modernist/neo-orthodox theologians. Piper’s theological upbringing is extremely suspect and warrants surprise in regard to his present popularity in Christian circles.
After jumping on the Brinsmead bandwagon, he saw a deficiency in COGOUS. It is best explained by somebody who witnessed the unfolding of the Awakening movement firsthand:
Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.”
True sanctification looks away from self and flows from the finished, objective work of Christ…. For many Christians, the glory of the crucified Christ is not their focus; instead they seek internal experiences that eclipse the cross. The Awakening rightly opposed the subjective, human-centered emphasis found among some groups within Christianity. Wrongly, they reacted with a cerebral, spiritless gospel. Brinsmead strongly opposed the Charismatic movement’s emphasis on experiences as a return to the theology of Rome.
However, going to another extreme, Present Truth magazine decried “the false gospel of the new birth,” and offered a new birth that was merely a corporate, objective blessing, not an individual experience.
John Piper to the Rescue
COGOUS was in danger of instigating the same kind of response that prompted existentialism: a pushback regarding indifference to the human experience. COGOUS supplied a theological frame that supposedly demolished the root of all false doctrine, but still didn’t deal with the human experience angle. This would explain why Piper is such a hero in this movement—he probably saved it. Christian Hedonism strongly emphasizes how COGOUS is experience (joy) while staying true to its strong emphasis on monergism. And, joy is a result of what we contemplate, not anything we do.
Conclusion
COGOUS is the doctrine/backbone of New Calvinism; Biblical Theology (RHH) is its hermeneutic; New Covenant Theology articulates COGOUS’s relationship to law and gospel; Heart Theology is its practical application (as far as that goes); and Christian Hedonism is how COGOUS is experienced. It’s the complete package. It is the first complete theological system for let go and let God theology ever devised in church history. It is powerful, and is a latter-day antinomian blitzkrieg of biblical proportions.
But the gigs up. Few Christians will buy into the idea that God used Robert Brinsmead to rediscover the lost Reformation doctrine. Trust me, it was never lost to begin with. I will conclude with a statement by John H. Armstrong that describes the New Calvinist motif, and a Piper video that contains subtle illusions to what they believe:
The sixteenth-century rediscovery of Paul’s objective message of justification by faith [and sanctification also because justification is supposedly progressive] came upon the religious scene of that time with a force and passion that totally altered the course of human history. It ignited the greatest reformation and revival known since Pentecost.
Now, if the Fathers of the early church, so nearly removed in time from Paul, lost touch with the Pauline message, how much more is this true in succeeding generations? The powerful truth of righteousness by faith needs to be restated plainly, and understood clearly, by every new generation.
In our time we are awash in a “Sea of Subjectivism,” as one magazine put it over twenty years ago. Let me explain. In 1972 a publication known as Present Truth published the results of a survey with a five-point questionnaire which dealt with the most basic issues between the medieval church and the Reformation. Polling showed 95 per cent of the “Jesus People” were decidedly medieval and anti-Reformation in their doctrinal thinking about the gospel. Among church-going Protestants they found ratings nearly as high.
A visual illustration of the issue Armstrong is talking about follows:
And here is the Piper video:
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments