Paul's Passing Thoughts

The calling card of New Calvinism is, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us,” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But the core doctrine is the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us. Hereafter: COGOUS.

No Christian would argue that we are saved by one who possesses a righteousness that is completely outside of us, but the contention against orthodoxy begins with the notion that this righteousness remains completely outside of us in sanctification. When contenders begin to move in on this aspect, New Calvinists quickly move the conversation back to “justification” where everyone agrees that before we were saved, we had no righteousness.

New Calvinists also employ a brainwashing technique by continually talking about justification and sanctification as if they are the same thing via the deliberate exclusion of  transitions in subject matter. John Piper’s The Gospel in 6 Minutes video is a good example of this. Another technique they employ is citing justification verses to make sanctification points. Yet another technique is to refer to believers in the past tense condition of the unregenerate. These three communication techniques are assumptive dialogues that are the staple elements of brainwashing and often employed by cults.

Let’s start with COGOUS. This concept came from the Progressive Adventists movement. I am presently working on more information that firmly establishes this, and in addition to what I cite in the first volume of The Truth About New Calvinism.  What is the Progressive Adventists movement? Here is an excerpt that is helpful:

In the space of five years (1978-1983), the Adventist community had seen three of its key tenets, or as Peter Berger calls them, its ‘legitimating structures’,15 fiercely assaulted. The cumulative effect was nothing short of traumatic. The North American Adventist community buzzed with debate. Frenzied discussion of righteousness by faith, Daniel 8, and Ellen White quickly escalated into open theological warfare, with the churches and colleges serving as the battlefields. People chose sides. They branded each other. ‘Fordite’ got attached to anyone who acknowledged the legitimacy of any of the criticisms of the investigative judgement or Ellen White, or who affirmed the Protestant gospel. Those who stood by the traditional teachings were known as ‘Traditionalists’. Neutral ground became increasingly hard to find. Adventism suddenly became a religious community intent on self-destruction.

It should not be self-destructive to reassess ones beliefs, but if there are those who refuse to acknowledged the problems then they are working against the progression of understanding. Thus Progressive Adventism sees these areas of questionable beliefs as things that need to be addressed and corrected. Particularly the last two areas, the investigative judgment and concerns over Ellen Whites authority or position as a prophet. The reason I don’t care two much about Paxton’s position is that I think the Reformation was wrong on so many things it is hardly something we should want to carry forward (Adventist Media Response and Conversation Sunday, November 20, 2011 The origins of Progressive Adventism Online sourse: http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2011/11/origins-of-progressive-adventism.html).

This is a good overall assessment with some exceptions. This from Wikipedia:

The movement emerged with Ford and Brinsmead as its main spokesmen. Desmond Ford apostatized from the church’s viewpoint in the 1970s, with issues with church doctrine similar to A. F. Ballenger.

In 1970, Robert Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy worked together on a project dubbed The Australian Forum which addressed the raging controversy at that time. Their stated goal was to form a systematic theology that would reform the SDA. My copy of “The Shaking of Adventism” by Geoffrey Paxton is on the way as I am delving deeper into the exact history that took place at that time. But the following is apparent: the Forum concluded that they had rediscovered the real crux of the protestant Reformation; specifically, the idea that Rome infused the righteousness of God that justified into the believer, and SDA was guilty of the same thing. Just hang on to that element alone for now.

In fact, the Forum, in essence, was correct. Both Rome and SDA believe that sanctification is the bridge between justification and glorification. Hence, believers are enabled by God to carry justification forward to the conclusion of our salvation: glorification. Rome primarily believes this is accomplished by ritual, while SDA believes that we are enabled by God to become righteous enough to “stand in the judgment.” In both cases, it’s salvation plus our efforts to complete salvation. All of our past sins are forgiven when we believe, but now we have to do certain things until glorification to maintain our just standing, albeit while being enabled or helped by God. A good example of this is the Free Will Baptists. When we are saved, we are forgiven of all of our past sins, but we must assure our forgiven status until glorification by asking forgiveness for all known sin. Ie., Christ plus our prayers for salvation. God takes care of the past, but now we have to pray our way into heaven. They use 1John 1:9 to argue for this position. Also, this is the crux of the matter in Paul’s letter to the Galatians. They were denying justification by faith alone by gravitating towards a doctrine of Christ plus something else for salvation. Theologians call this a “fusion of justification and sanctification” or “the collapsing of justification into sanctification.” In other words, sanctification finishes justification.

This is not orthodox, which teaches that sanctification is totally different from justification. Nothing we do in sanctification can add to justification, or take away from it. Our behavior in sanctification can cause us to doubt our justification has really happened, but it cannot affect the true reality of it either way. Unless the two are connected.  And this is what the Forum did. They were guilty of the same thing that Rome and SDA are guilty of, except their solution to the results of the faulty premise was different, and claimed it to be Reformed theology and the crux of the Reformation. Yes, the Forum started with the same faulty premise that sanctification finishes justification, but not by the inclusion of our works. Based on this same faulty premise of sanctification finishing justification, they concluded that like justification, sanctification had to be by faith alone. We could participate, but only to the degree that we participated in our justification: faith and repentance.

And, hence, neither could God’s righteousness be within us, for this would be the same thing as being enabled to finish justification by sanctification. Let me repeat that:  And, hence, neither could God’s righteousness be within us, for this would be the same thing as being enabled to finish justification by sanctification. Therefore, the alien righteousness of Christ must remain completely outside of us. Right?  How can they deny this? If the same gospel of justification is an alien righteousness completely outside of us, and the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us, and hence, we need to preach this same gospel to ourselves every day, neither can there be any righteousness within us for this would enable us to finish justification. Again, therefore, this righteousness, or any other righteousness that is really righteous, must remain completely outside of us. This explains, without equivocation, the prevailing total depravity of the saints mentality among New Calvinists.

This doctrine was utterly unique with the Australian Forum. In my interview with Robert Brinsmead, he claimed such, and my research concurs:

Author: What do you think the unique theological findings of the Forum were in light of history? Robert Brinsmead: “Definitely the centrality and all sufficiency of the objective gospel understood as an historical rather than an experiential event, something wholly objective rather than subjective – an outside of me event and the efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness.”

Another way this progressive SDA theology is communicated by present-day New Calvinists is “the reversal of justification and sanctification by infusing grace into the believer.” Ie., an infusing of righteousness into the believer which can only make the believer a participant in justification. The intentional use of “grace” in place of “righteousness” is yet a fourth communication technique by New Calvinists that shades what they are saying by the use of different words that mean the same thing in context, but aren’t as direct as other words that would raise red flags. Most orthodox believers hold to the belief that we are in fact declared righteous and made righteous. This is not a problem in sanctification because our righteousness cannot contribute to justification anyway, the two are separate.

This doctrine is most treacherous to the Christian walk because it separates us from the law. Any attempt on our part to apply the law of God to our lives would be “reversing sanctification and justification by infusing grace into the believer.” Any attempt to directly obey the law, or to “leap from the imperative directly into obedience” is to also believe that we have a righteousness within us that would enable us to do so. Instead, we must “offer the perfect obedience /righteousness of Christ instead, and by faith alone.”

But yet, Christ said  that putting what He has said into practice results in our lives being built on a rock. Much is at stake here. New Calvinism is another gospel all together. To be truly saved according to this doctrine is to recognize that you have not been granted a practical righteousness that you can put into practice. You must recognize that you cannot uphold the law, and any attempt to do so is to “make sanctification the grounds of your justification.”

paul

“New Calvinism and bullying go hand in hand. They are spiritual terrorists dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers.”

 “That’s who these people are. They are arrogant, drunk with visions of grandeur, and just plain mean.”

Apparently, it’s how God wired me. Even as a young boy, I refused to tolerate bullies. Twice in the eighth grade I planned missions against two bullies. After my initial strike, I had a turtle-like position that I would get into that would limit the damage from the retaliation—if they were able to respond. In both cases they were (much to my surprise), but the position worked well until teachers came to the rescue. Interestingly, after one broken nose (the binding of that history book was really sturdy) and another singing soprano, the bullying stopped.  Then when I was 17, I worked for a friend who owned a lawn care service. Apparently, the owner of an apartment complex that we serviced refused to fire us and obtain a unionized lawn care service. We were approached by two real-life mobster types who demanded that we stop servicing the account. My friend told them in terms that can’t be repeated here to hang it on their beaks. We obtained firearms to protect ourselves and continued to service the account.

And as a Christian, I will not tolerate New Calvinist bullies. And I have a weapon far more powerful than in the days of ignorance: truth. So let me clarify why I had a post pulled down on another blog. I am not going to name names because the individual agreed to pull it down. He is one of the many crass, arrogant New Calvinist graduates that are steadily crawling out of Southern Theological Seminary and seeking to infiltrate a local church near you. In my business, and if it’s convenient, I will take the opportunity to address those who attack me personally with generalizations. In this case, I figured the congregation where he attends and teaches is not privy to what he really believes, and informed him that I would educate them with my “misrepresentations” and let them decide for themselves what the truth is if they are still able to think for themselves. Apparently they are, the post was pulled down shortly thereafter. Admittedly, I might have been provoked by the fact that a certain New Calvinist had also commented on the post. This particular man has sent me emails to inform me of his wishes that I would die.

New Calvinism and bullying go hand in hand. They are spiritual terrorists dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers. I know a dear brother who is presently under bogus church discipline for asking too many questions. He was told that if he wasn’t going to “get on board with the grace movement,” they were going to show him the front door of the church. When he refused to leave, he was brought up on church discipline. Yes, this soft spoken, gentle, godly brother has been muzzled. Another prime example is the well documented bullying by CJ Mahaney who is presently being harbored by a New Calvinist hero among them (for excommunicating 256 members for unbiblical reasons). That’s who these people are. They are arrogant, drunk with visions of grandeur, and just plain mean.

But they might have a problem. The deeper I dig into New Calvinism, the more evidence emerges showing that it is the product of the Progressive Adventist movement. The core doctrine of that movement was the centrality of the objective gospel completely outside of us. As in the post that was pulled down, New Calvinists often say: “What’s wrong with a gospel that says that justification is based on a righteousness that came from outside of us? Dohse misunderstands the issue of justification.” But these vile liars know grade-A-well that the doctrine teaches that righteousness stays completely outside of us in sanctification as well. Christ is formed in spiritually dead believers through gospel contemplationism. Other forms of the “practical application” of this doctrine advocates a formula that enables us to “present the perfect obedience of Christ to the Father by faith.” It’s not our obedience according to the doctrine; since we “live by faith,” and all of OUR righteousness is “filthy rags” (present tense),  we present the “active obedience of Christ” to the Father by faith.  New Calvinists deliberately confuse and divert by using the terms interchangeably. In the post that was pulled down, the author argued from the standpoint of justification in order to divert from what the doctrine really teaches about sanctification by justification, or what amounts to sanctification by faith alone.

I hope my motives are primarily driven by a love for the truth. But the fact that I don’t like bullies is definitely part of what drives me against this doctrine. Never have, never will.

paul