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
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 6A: Horton’s Kinship With the Australian Forum Can be Seen in Frame’s Review
Let me continue to voice my appreciation for the information sent by readers; that’s what this network ministry is all about— cooperation in sharing information about New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology which are all the same thing, and hereafter: NCGSS. Information sent yesterday is the subject of this post.
This particular series is exploring the possibility that New Calvinism was born from the Australian Forum. A working hypothesis chart can be viewed in part 2 of this series
( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ); Horton’s place in the theoretical history can be seen on the chart. One thing thus far is certain: the doctrines are identical. Furthermore, both movements show the same motives, and both claim to have returned to Reformed / Puritan doctrine—this is the same dominate theme / staple of both movements. Also, there is reason to believe that New Covenant Theology was conceived from Jon Zens’ association with the Forum, and he also shared their desire to find middle ground between difficult doctrines.
As I noted previously, the Australian Forum Three were Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead and the Forum were trying to reform SDA, the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings. In fact, Paxton was infatuated with Adventist theology and lost a teaching position because of his association with the AF. Paxton and Brinsmead also shared a rabid distaste for Charismatic theology (they would not be pleased with New Calvinism’s inclusion of Charismatics). Goldsworthy’s motives for being involved with the AF are yet unclear, but the fact that he is oftentimes quoted by New Calvinist (hereafter NC) is no accident.
The subject of this post is John Frame’s review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” sent to me by a reader. The review is full of painstaking discernment. This kind of discipline in sorting through the mystical theological world of Michael Horton is very commendable. Frame also mentions what I call Horton’s Kerryisms: “I was for it before I was against it.” Or, “I know I said ‘A,’ but let me clarify so you poor spiritual peasants don’t misunderstand my theological brilliance: I only said ‘A’ in a manner of speaking, unless you agree with ‘A.’ If you agree, I really said it, but if you disagree, I was only saying ‘A’ in a manner of speaking.”
As I was reading Frames’ review—I saw AF footprints everywhere. I will be pointing to that relationship, using Frames review while mentioning other residual issues related to NC.
Frame opens his review this way:
The title of this book is alarming, certainly by design. But the subtitle is even more so. Does it mean that the whole American church (all traditions, denominations, locations) is committed to an “alternative Gospel?” Or is it that, though part of the American church upholds the true, biblical gospel, there is within that church a movement (evidently a significant movement) to the contrary?
John, Horton is what we call a New Calvinist. They hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. As implied by the title, we are supposedly sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. In other words, we are sanctified by justification, and the contemplation thereof. As John Piper says, “beholding as a way of becoming.” John: yes! Yes! Yes! They believe anything short of monergistic substitutionary sanctification is a false gospel. That’s why Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” Listen very carefully to Piper’s “6 Minute Gospel” video on the internet as he calls for Evangelicals everywhere who believe in our efforts in sanctification to be saved from works salvation. It’s why Tullian Tchividjian said the following:
“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 the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth. As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day.”
These guys believe that God is using them to reform another Dark Age of distinctions between justification and sanctification. They are also very resentful—they believe that Evangelicalism has sold the church a bill of goods about salvation. This attitude can be seen in the many hostile ministry takeovers playing out across this country (of which are finally being spoken of by Ovadal, Hamilton, and others). A good example is Coral Ridge. This mentality is also identical to that of the AF Three. A good thumbnail of this doctrine / mentality can be read in Horton’s Christless Christianity:
“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.”
NO ONE has yet demanded that Horton explain this statement. And this is fact: any statement made by NC proponents that seems to contradict this statement is just that—seemingly at odds. Furthermore, in many NC Reformed Baptist churches, they practice what is called “Redemptive Church Disciple.” When a parishioner is caught in a sin, the discipline doesn’t address the sin, it focuses on the supposed fundamental problem of how the “vast majority” of evangelicals understand the gospel. Therefore, the discipline focuses on “redemption.” The sin is supposedly a mere symptom of a false gospel. Hence, the discipline focuses on converting the individual from orthodox Evangelicalism to Gospel Sanctification. The discipline goes from step to step as the victim refuses to “repent” from synergistic sanctification to a monergistic substitutionary form. Moreover, as unsuspecting evangelical married couples join Reformed churches; one spouse in a marriage may come to believe the doctrine while the other spouse doesn’t. The marriage is then deemed a mixed marriage (believer / unbeliever) by the NC leadership. I have firsthand knowledge of this, and it is one of many in regard to the dirty little secrets of NC.
What are these subtle distortions? Evidently, what Horton is concerned with is an emphasis. The metaphors of “looking away from” Christ and putting something else on “center stage” have to do with the emphasis we put on Christ.
Right. Horton got this from the AF. Though Horton or the AF affirm many tenets of orthodoxy, they also say that the tenets are irrelevant for all practical purposes. Why? Because they eclipse Christ. To talk about it is to NOT talk about Christ; therefore, “it” is error. So, truthful orthodoxy is true as long as you don’t talk about it—unless you talk about “it” in it’s Christocentric context or it’s gospel context, Or it’s context in regard to justification, or it’s context in regard to what Jesus did—not anything we do. Likewise, that is how the movement denies that we are the subjects of biblical imperatives—because “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
This is also how the AF and Horton both deny the “new birth,” or the belief that Christians are born again despite what is plainly stated in Scripture. Unless the new birth can be framed in a Christocentric context that completely eliminates us from consideration—it’s error. As long as you don’t talk about it—it’s truth, so if anyone calls them on it—they simply say that “emphasis” is the issue, not a denial of the new birth. Let me further elaborate. I wrote the following in part 4:
“This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF Three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article…. Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
‘Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. 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.1’”
The footnote in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, ‘The False Gospel of the New Birth,’ Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, ‘We [“we” being the AF Three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth….’ he then continues to write, ‘Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.’”
So, the new birth is false because, “it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root.” Therefore, unless the new birth is taught without considering saintly ramifications, it eclipses Christ and becomes a false doctrine. Horton reflected this exact same maniacal approach to the new birth in: “In the Face of God.” I will now compare Paxton’s summary quote from the aforementioned article and a quote from Horton in the book I just mentioned:
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?”
The above discussion casts some light on another theme of this book, one which Horton develops in many of his writings. Horton often emphasizes his view that the gospel focuses (again, note the relative term) on the “outer” rather than the “inner,” what happens outside of us, rather than what happens within us, the objective rather than the subjective. He quotes Goldsworthy,
“The pivotal point of turning in evangelical thinking which demands close attention is the change that has taken place from the Protestant emphasis on the objective facts of the gospel in history, to the medieval emphasis on the inner life. The evangelical who sees the inward transforming work of the Spirit as the key element of Christianity will soon lose contact with the historic faith and the historic gospel “(152).
Again, Horton gets this from the AF. And therefore, the quote by Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three, should come as no surprise. The AF wrote no less than 103 articles on this subject. Here is one excerpt:
“The tendency of human nature is to make the subjective aspect of Christianity the focal point of concern. This is what happened in the early church. It lost sight of the great Pauline message of justification by God’s work outside of man. Even in the teachings of the fathers of the post-apostolic church, the objective truth of justification by faith held no prominent place. More and more the church began to focus on the experience of sanctification. Indeed, justification came to be looked upon only as an initiating step at the beginning of the Christian’s life; the mighty Pauline truth about justification was subordinated to what was thought to be the higher blessing of sanctification. The focus of attention was away from the gospel to the fruit of the gospel, away from Christ’s experience to Christian experience, away from the objective to the subjective.”
This second excerpt shows why this subject was core to the AF doctrine:
“The medieval thought was man-centered, experience-centered, and subjective. The Reformation thought was Christ-centered, cross-centered, and objective.”
In these two statements from the AF—we see one of the core elements that NCGSS proponents believe connects them to the Reformation. Arrogantly, they believe that Pauline doctrine on justification was lost twice: once following the Apostolic Age; and again after the Reformation ignited by Martin Luther. Let there be no doubt—New Calvinist believe that they are the cutting edge of the second Reformation in Redemptive History, and they are taking no prisoners.
paul
A Little Uptight and In the Fight
A visitor of PPT sent me a mp3 link the other day. It was a recording of The Heart of the Matter Programwith Pastor Ralph Ovadal—Ovadal pastors Pilgrims Covenant Church in Madison, Wisconsin.
Let me be clear: after researching these two churches; would I attend / join either? Answer: Yes, I would give up my NASB, Casting Crowns, Mercy Me, Kutless, and Sunday jeans for SANITY. That’s what the present-day Evangelical landscape is right now—pure insanity. Most leaders whom I used to respect have certainly lost their minds. Extremism Light is looking pretty good to me right now.
That aside, the recording is a lengthy and decent evaluation of New Calvinism. In regard to their complaint along with Dr. Peter Masters that New Calvinism is worldly—that’s true by any sane person’s estimation. The pastors reiterate instances of absurd behavior by some of the more well known leaders in the movement. They also talk about well documented, over the top compromise by the who’s who of the Evangelical world, especially John MacArthur Jr. They are obviously not impressed with the stature of men—calling John Piper, “dangerous.”
Moreover, their doctrinal contentions hit the mark. They note the movement’s distortion of justification and sanctification, and Hamilton calls out the movement for being antinomian.
Here is the link:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sermonID=1022101212210
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 5: Ellen White Was A New Calvinist Momma
“White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called ‘deep repentance,’ was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, ‘deep repentance.’”
As I study the Australian Forum (AF) archives to first establish that their theology is exactly the same as contemporary New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology (NCGSS), the task is becoming a real yawner. Monday, I will be writing a post on the AF version of “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” The whole indicative/imperative thing is a NCGSS staple. Further articles will be a mopping up of comparisons—almost a boring formality. I will also note a comparison of the AF’s version of Michael Horton’s Doctrine to Doxology.
As I noted previously, the AF three are Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead was trying to reform SDA, the AF endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings.
And why not? According to reviews written by the AF, White (hereafter “NCM”) had much in common with contemporary New Calvinism. First, NCM believed that sanctification was through justification alone. Or, ‘The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Paxton had this to say while reiterating NCM’s belifs:
“Justification is not a filling station that is passed but once, or a one-time event which is followed by sanctification—with perhaps an occasional looking back to justification. This theology [White’s] will not allow that. Justification and sanctification must be kept together. One blessing is the obverse side of the other. Justification feeds sanctification, and sanctification must continually return to justification” ( “The Theology of Ellen G. White: Sanctification” Present Truth Magazine [prim. ref.]).
Here is how Tullian Tchividjian, a New Calvinist, stated it:
“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 the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth. As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day.”
It was the AF’s contention (it was mostly Paxton who wrote on behalf of the Forum) that because of people’s lack of understanding in regard to what NCM believed—there are many misconceptions accordingly. In their article on NCM’s view on sanctification, they make the case that what she wrote must be seen through her basic prism on the subject of sanctification (which is very similar to NCGSS):
”Contradictions? Paradoxes? That is for the reader to judge, but he who does not recognize (or refuses to recognize) these factors in Mrs. White is like the man who comes to the United States, takes a look around Los Angeles, and is satisfied that America boils down to smog and freeways” (prim. ref.).
NCM, like NCGSS advocates, was also a proponent of sanctification being limited to the same elements of justification—faith and repentance only: “There is no such thing as going beyond repentance, beyond the need of forgiveness and justification. To reach up in faith for acceptance with God is not one act in a lifetime. That no point in our experience can we dispense with the assistance of that which enables us to make the first start” (prim. ref.).
White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called “deep repentance,” was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, “deep repentance.” She believed that growth in sanctification depended on a contemplation of Christ and His works in comparison to our own inability to keep the law. As we (supposedly) gaze on Christ in the Scriptures, we become more, and more aware of our own sinfulness, and this (supposedly) fosters a deeper, and deeper dependence on Christ while nurturing humbleness. She believed that this continual partaking in deep repentance changes us from “glory to glory.” Sound familiar? In relationship to the law—her view was very positive. The law did two things: on the one hand, it is a glorious testimony as to what Christ obeyed for us—making us thankful. On the other hand, it shows us what we are unable to do—driving us back to the cross with pleas for mercy. I call this law positive and law negative. NCGSS advocates refer to it as “using the law lawfully.” The following are quotes from the same article that reference what I have proposed above:
“Here is the paradox of joy and sorrow. ‘The deepest joy of heart comes from the deepest humiliation.’(79) Sanctification therefore means progress in two directions. ‘The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature.’(80) ‘At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen.’(81) ‘The more our sense of need drives us to Him [Christ] and to the word of God, the more exalted views we shall have of His character, and the more fully we shall reflect His image.’82 “ (footnotes supplied by Forum: 79; 3T 459, 80; SC 64, 81; AA 561, 82; SC 65 [ key to abbreviations: http://goo.gl/y8Kfj ]).
“Brethren and sisters, it is by beholding that we become changed. By dwelling upon the love of God and our Saviour, by contemplating the perfection of the divine character and claiming the righteousness of Christ as ours by faith, we are to be transformed into the same image” (“Signs of the Times” pages 743-745).
“The justified believer, being no longer under the law’s condemnation, nor under it as a covenant of works, has a new attitude toward the law. He delights in it after the inward man, he wants to be perfect, but he mourns because he falls so far short of it.The law thus reminds him of how he must continue to hide his lack of perfection in Christ.Thus the believer always sees himself a sinner and counts himself vile….” (SL 81, DA 519, AA 561).
“The sanctification of the soul is accomplished through steadfastly beholding Him [Christ] by faith. . . .”(21) “Our faith increases by beholding Jesus. . . .”(22) “Our greatest need is faith. . . .”(23) It would not be difficult to make a good case for the life of faith being the dynamic of sanctification, in real Luther style” (21; 6BC 1117, 22; HP 127, 23; 7T 211).
“So will it be with all who behold Christ. The nearer we come to Jesus, and the more clearly we discern the purity of His character, the more clearly shall we see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the less shall we feel like exalting ourselves. There will be a continual, earnest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the heart before Him. At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen” (“Acts of the Apostles” 560, 561).
“Law and gospel, deep repentance and joyous faith, sinful and righteous, must always be kept together in Christian existence” (Paxton’s reiteration).
One may compare these quotes with the likes of John Piper:
“What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses? Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more. Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:9). So to know the God of the Old Testament is to know Christ. The more you see his glory and treasure his worth, the more you will be changed into his likeness (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)” (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully” Desiring God Ministries).
“Beholding is a way of becoming” (“The Pleasures Of God” p. 17).
“Along with deep repentance, Scripture calls us to a faith that rests and feeds upon the living Christ. He fills us with himself through the person of the Holy Spirit and we are transformed by faith” (Paul David Tripp, “How People Change” p. 28).
Like new Calvinist, White’s sanctification by justification also enabled her to speak in orthodox terms without contradicting her theology. For instance:
“Then again, one can make a good case out of union with Christ or the reception of the Holy Spirit as being the theme of Mrs. White’s concept of the Christian life. Here she is a quietist, telling us that the Christian life is a life of trust and restfulness. There she is a full-blooded activist, urging the reader to action, telling him that the Christian life is a fight, a battle, a march, that he must steel every nerve and fiber in what promises to be ‘slow, toilsome steps’ toward perfection.”
Right. Because when she speaks of “toilsome steps,” she is either speaking of toiling in the narrow endeavor of faith/deep repentance ONLY, or the results of that which leads to Christ’s toiling—NOT ours, or both. Paul Tripp does the same thing in “How People Change” on page 6:
“Rather, He calls us to a life of constant work, constant growth, and constant confession and repentance.”
Tripp, like NCM, is not talking about work by us in a sanctification that is many faceted, but work in “confession and repentance” only, and it is not certain whether the “work” is that of Christ that supposedly results from deep repentance, or the prior. Hence, NCGSS doctrine makes this kind of deceptive doublespeak possible, while appearing orthodox.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 4: Spiritually Dead Christians
As I sort through the history of Seventh-Day Adventism, Robert Brinsmead’s biography, and the teachings of the Australian Forum (AF), my mind is overwhelmed with the theological elements and characteristics that liken to present-day New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology (NCGSS). However, there are two places in our endeavor where we can drive stakes thus far, and with certainty: the centrality and premise of everything gospel (ie., justification), and everything seen, understood, and interpreted through the gospel (justification) prism. In other words, two elements that make up the foundation of these two movements are exactly the same: a dogmatic refusal to let any truth eclipse justification, and a gospel-centered hermeneutic.
In the first, we also see the kinship between the two movements in the either / or interpretive schema. It’s what I call GB theology—you’re either with us—or you’re with the terrorist. In BOTH movements, you are either for justification only in sanctification (of course, that’s not how they would frame it)—or you are totally against justification by faith alone for salvation as well.
In the latter, the echo between the AF and the likes of Paul David Tripp regarding “all things must be seen in its gospel context” is utterly uncanny. I contend that the aforementioned facts show a historical uniqueness between the two groups that hardly persuade me that one didn’t come from the other.
This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth (PT) had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article. More research is needed, but I have a working hypothesis that the AF, and movements within Reformed Baptist circles that facilitated New Covenant Theology (NCT) played a part in John Piper’s injection into NCGSS.
Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
“Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. 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.1”
The footnote as in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, “The False Gospel of the New Birth,” Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, “We [“we” being the AF three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth,” he then continues to write, “Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.”
Stop right there. Let me now introduce another example (characteristic) of how the student looks like the teacher. Like NCGSS, AF writings are saturated with a bias against Evangelicals. Here, Paxton refers to the “typical evangelical approach.” As can be seen in this article, you can even accidentally get two examples of this if you refer back to the aforementioned Goldsworthy quote: “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.”
And stop right there again. I am going to introduce another related characteristic that the two groups share: the whole inside verses outside focus thing. What is that? Well, it dominates NCGSS teaching, especially that of Michael Horton. It is the idea that to focus on something like the new birth is to focus on us, or what is inside of us, rather than what is outside of us, namely, the gospel. This is a major theme of late in Horton’s writings. Paxton writes in the article that is the subject of this post:
“This approach to the new birth is incredibly introspective and self-preoccupied. Such evangelical ‘navel watching’ does nothing to commend robust Christianity to non-evangelicals or to those outside the church. It assaults the tender consciences of believers. 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. It is, in fact, anti-Christ.”
Sigh. Ok, I am really busy today and I can’t remember where I filed some Horton quotes that ape the AF example exactly, so let me take a minute and google “Michael Horton outside of us.” Be right back. Ok—it’s been about 30 seconds, and here is what I have, though not the best examples:
“Each of these themes serves to remind the believer that his or her righteousness is found not within, but outside.”
“It is essential, therefore, to point unbelievers and believers alike to Christ outside of their own subjective experiences and actions.”
I could now get into yet another apeian characteristic of how the two camps interpret anything to do with us as being “subjective,” while the gospel outside of us is “objective.” Of course, as I have written before: using the objective gospel prism to interpret everything in the Bible leads to gargantuan subjectivity, but I digress. The more one peers into the data, the more it’s like grabbing two handfuls of Jell-O out of the same bowl and comparing them. In fact, I asked my readers to pray about a project I have been working on, but the way the prayers were answered was totally unexpected. The recent discovery of the AF firebombed the project. The project was a workbook that analyzed the writings of John Fonville because the way he writes makes an articulation of NCGSS easy to understand. Not only that—Fonville is a very contemporary up and comer in the movement, which should make my comparison to AF writings very interesting. Fonville wrote in one article:
“Throughout much of my Christian life I was a professing Evangelical but in practice a functioning Roman Catholic…. What do I mean by that? I would habitually turn inward to conduct personal ‘fruit inspection’ and then wallow and mope around for long periods of time in despair, guilt and a troubled conscience. I would beat myself up with self-focused thoughts.”
Interestingly, Paxton says this in the article that we are considering: “The false gospel of the new birth imagines that the new birth refers primarily to what happens in the believer and that this is the greatest news in the world. This is classical Roman Catholicism.”
Even more characteristics could be discussed; such as, both camps relying heavily on the writings of Walter Marshal. More to my point, before I even knew of the AF, I wrote this in the now defunct Fonville project: : “In addition to ill definitions and antithetical exaggerations, Fonville, like other GS teachers, employs an either/or paradigm in interpreting Scripture. There will be many examples of this in his writings, and we observe the first here as he insinuates that the law can only have a plenary role in spiritual growth, or none at all. Fonwell will also deny a colaboring in spiritual growth (1Corinthians 3:9 and 1Thessalonians 3:2) by default—insinuating that both saint and Spirit cannot work in the process—it’s either/or.”
Besides the undeniable, twofold, primary foundation of both camps, everything justification dogma, and the gospel prism of interpretation, the list of identical characteristics and elements continues to get longer with each hour of study: either/or, us against Evangelicals, and outside focus verses inside focus, etc.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
11 comments