Interview With a New Calvinist: Part 1
“RL” is a New Calvinist and author. I am pleased to have this clarifying dialogue with him. I was going to write a review of a book he wrote on marriage which would have included some sensitive information. While obtaining his side of the story, which I believe to be the true side, an ability to work together in distinguishing doctrinal views was exhibited. Not only that, I have grown to like him personally. Why? Because he tells it like he sees it. Of course, it’s no secret that I disdain New Calvinist doctrine, but what I disdain more is nuanced doublespeak concerning doctrine. For crying out loud, if that’s what you believe—state it and let the chips fall where they may. No doubt, if I believe someone is trying to trick others into believing what they believe, it does become personal—I can’t respect that.
Here is what RL agreed to:
“Thanks. Actually I would like to just have an open discussion on marriage so that you can present the New Calvinist side. Q and A format. It would be posted on my blog–and I am primarily interested in a clear presentation of the New Calvinist side. You would then be welcome to address any comments that come in.”
Well, while we are at it, let’s just take this opportunity to learn more about New Calvinism. I look forward to several productive parts:
Q: Do you consider yourself to be a “New Calvinist”?
New Calvinism(ist) (hereafter NC) could be a very broad term. It’s sort of like saying,
“Are you reformed?” To some, that can speak of paedo-baptist practices; to some it is
soteriological, to some it is non-dispensational, etc. Can we get a working definition
of the NC concept and then go from there?
Q: Yes, one that would associate themselves with T4G, TGC, SGM and their general
tenants such as “the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you”–ie., gospel-
driven this and gospel-centered that. Then we can cover some other specific tenets
from there.
Yes. I do believe the gospel that saves, also sanctifies. However, to suggest that the
term gospel is strictly limited to the doctrine of justification alone would be a
misnomer. Contextually, sometimes the term “gospel” refers to a God centered
perspective on the Christian life.
The gospel is a God centered declaration of both His glory and grace. Hence, because
of the “amazing grace” there is a sense of gratitude that compels/motivates our
sanctification. Simultaneously, because of the concurrent experience of glorifying
God, there is an inexpressible joy that also compels/motivates our sanctification.
“NC’s” are motivated by both glory and grace.
Q: So how is this experienced? Say I believe the NC package. Let’s say you are discipling
me day one. Where do I go from here?
Depending on the age, of course, of the individual, there is obviously a
contextualization discernment made as to where to begin. But, for argument’s sake,
we’ll say our new convert is 25 years old.
Initially, we’d direct them to begin reading Scripture (allowing the HS to renew their
mind before we begin to “reform” them) to begin familiarizing themselves with God.
Much along the lines of how Calvin puts things, “We must first know and understand
who and what God is before we can truly begin to know anything about ourselves…”
That being said, much of the confidence of the NC would derive from the perspicuity of
Scripture, as our new convert begins to read the story of redemption and allow the HS
to begin to teach him. Law and Gospel, we would say, underlies the believer’s new
life.
For some new believers, the realization of the necessity of regeneration is something
that is seen/learned, sooner than others. Such is why all Calvinists stress the theological
and sanctifying importance of how the Holy Spirit has overcome our depravity and, as
Jonathan Edwards penned so eloquently, “liberated the will” to once again please God.
Hence, there is an immense measure of grace that fuels the believer’s obedience once
they understand how enslaved they once were to their sin.
From there, we proceed to train/instruct the new believer as to how to go about living the
Christian life. We would explain to them that the Christian life is not about learning an
endless list of “do’s and don’ts” in order to gain “justifying” favor with God. Our
foundational emphasis for empowering the believer stems from the finished work of
Christ that has been applied to his life, that there is no longer any further “good works”
that are required in order to be justified. His sanctification, we would say, is being
empowered by the Gospel of glory and grace; of what God has done on his behalf and
the joy found in pleasing God.
The question then becomes, what must a Christian do in order to please God? Answer:
Find joy in Holiness. How is holiness defined? God’s word, as it becomes a reflection
of who and what God is. It is for holiness’ sake that we have been set free from our sin,
why we were justified, why we are sanctified and why, ultimately, God will glorify his
people. God has an undeniable prefixation with our being conformed into the image of
Christ, who is perfectly holy, something we have been destined to reflect for the rest of
eternity, beginning as soon as we have been justified sola fide.
That last answer covers some serious territory. Will resume with some questions tomorrow.
paul
Posted on My Facebook Wall by New Day Christian Ministries
Paul Dohse on New Calvinism. Paul is the Sheppard dog.
Interpretive Questions From a Visitor on Justification
1. Do you believe the accomplishments of the cross are complete and whole without the sinner’s reception of them?
It seems to me this is getting into the limited atonement issue, and my answer on that is: I don’t know. Past that, what particular accomplishments are you speaking of?
2. Is it the work of Christ alone that justifies sinners through faith, or the sinner’s faith in the work of Christ that justifies?
First of all, I reject the either/or premise of the question. Christ does NOT work ALONE in salvation/justification. There is NO salvation without the work of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.
I also reject the either/or premise of ALL Christ or ALL our faith. It’s both. BUT, our faith is a gift from God (Phil. 1:29)—no gift, no faith, but after the gift is given—it is our faith. SO, it’s BOTH.
3. Does God regenerate sinners when they believe, or do sinners believe when God regenerates them (I am speaking causally not temporally)?
God first gives them the gift of faith—then they believe; again, Phil. 1:29.
4. Do you believe God imputes the perfect obedience of Christ to sinners and, on that basis, declares them to be righteous in his sight, or does he infuse grace to sinners in regeneration which in turn forms at least part of the basis of their justification? Is seems to me what Piper is saying is that the basis of justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner,
regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying? Justification must be only something outside the sinner, namely, the righteousness of Christ, never something inside the sinner, namely, regeneration and sanctification. Would you disagree with that statement if that is what he was saying?
Again, I reject the either/or premise of the question which is classic John Piper hermeneutics. The declaration HAS to be based on either imputed righteousness or infused righteousness/grace. In other words, all that is happening is justification imputed
or justification infused. What’s happening in us HAS to be justification related and the GROUND of justification.
If you really want to get into this deeply, the Forum, like Piper, says that everything MUST BE either the fruit of justification or the ground (root) of justification. Another either/or hermeneutic that has to see everything through justification. They would then answer your question 5 with an empathic “yes!” BUT only in regard to the new birth/regeneration being the fruit of ongoing/progressive justification. Any teaching that states that the new birth enables us to take part in spiritual growth is considered works righteousness because it “makes the fruit the root.” This is because in the Forum/New Calvinist doctrine, the declaration of righteousness isn’t enough to guarantee glorification, we must be declared righteous, produce perfect righteousness, and be found righteous in the end (eerily similar to SDA theology). Therefore, the only way this can be done is to devise a way in which the righteousness of Christ is presented for sanctification as well.
The concern of the Forum/New Calvinists is that God is saying we are righteous, when really we aren’t. So, somehow, a perfect righteousness has to be ongoing. Problem is, this excludes the law from us in regard to obedience because we are obviously unable to keep it perfectly. This all sounds logical until you need to come up with a system that doesn’t appear to be let go and let God theology or blatant antinomianism.
I’m not going to write a book here, orthodoxy appeals to 1John to answer what New Calvinists and the Forum propagate.
Piper’s right, justification is a legal declaration outside of us, but justification is not a singular prism that defines the entire salvation process. This all smells like SDA investigative theology, but I am withholding judgment on that till volume 2.
Secondly, Scripture regarding righteousness declared by God and based on faith is everywhere in the Bible, but one has to dig hard to make a case for the imputed righteousness of Christ in-particular. Why does Piper have to make this such a huuuuge issue? Hmmmm. Whatever righteousness is credited to our account is enough to get the job done. But I can tell you that I reject double imputation out of hand, but thouroughly understand why New Calvinists need it in order to make everything work.
5. Do you think it is possible to place great emphasis on the objective reality of the sufficiency of Christ’s redeeming work for the sinner’s justification without denying the reality and importance of regeneration?
It’s a mute point. How much we are to emphasize the gospel that saved us is described in the Bible. One way is the Lord’s Table. But be sure of this: a singular focus on justification as a means of spiritual growth is classic antinomianism.
DeYoung’s Plan Won’t Work
Special K is at it again. Kevin DeYoung keeps writing orthodox-like articles about sanctification in hopes that he can get someone from the New Calvinist crowd to kinda agree with him without receiving the dreaded tweet from the first pope of New Calvinism, John Piper the First. Bye-bye you fill in the blank. Have you heard? Rob Bell is resigning from the church he founded—done in by the dreaded tweet.
I can tell from reading his stuff that he knows New Calvinism is propagating antinomian doctrine. However, they are so subtle about it that they could slip back into orthodoxy and the dumbed-down congregants of our day would never know the difference. This is what Special K is hoping for so he keeps writing stuff about sanctification to get someone to join what might be the beginning of the Great Slither back to orthodoxy.
So far—no takers. For one thing, you have Tullian Tchividjian pushing back against DeYoung and as many of his victims know—he’s one bad dude. Everyone saw how he cleaned house at Coral Ridge and few want any part of that. Chad Bresson, the author of Vossed World blog and a New Calvinist elder weighed in as well, saying that Young’s discussion of the difference between monergistc sanctification and synergistic sanctification is “interesting.” Both articles were the usual nuanced New Calvinist double-speak because they just can’t come right out and say that they believe Christ obeys for us. I doubt Special K still believes that, but you know, a man has to eat. If he can get the Great Slither going—he can have it both ways.
Bresson’s post, about a thousand words later, concluded with the following profound unction: “In the end DeYoung is helpful in showing us the drawbacks of using certain terminology to describe what the Bible teaches us about the role of the Spirit and our participation in our transformation into Christ’s image. We are participants in salvation history. Language is not always precise in delineating the inner machinations of how that participation comes to be. It’s easy to see the downward slopes off the deep end in both directions. And DeYoung, like others who may disagree on certain points, wants to avoid the deep ends.”
Likewise, DeYoung’s conclusion was nearly as profound: “So what do we see in this short survey of Reformed theologians. For starters, we do not see the exact language of monergism or synergism applied to sanctification….Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit….Third, we see in this Reformed survey the need to be careful with our words. For example, “passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active.”
Huh? Well, there was some definitive verbiage by pastor Terry Rayburn who isn’t very popular among that bunch because he stinks at nuance. Here were his comments at VW:
So the best question is not ” monergistic or synergistic?” The better question is, “Sanctification: by Law or by Grace?” The clear biblical answer is “by Grace”.
The Law (OC or NC) can neither save nor sanctify. We are no longer under the power of sin, why? Because we have the Law? No, because we are no longer UNDER Law, but Grace (Rom. 6:14). The Law is the very POWER of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), so certainly can’t sanctify. Of course, a quick Bible word search will show that the concept of “sanctification” is MOSTLY zeroed in on our once-for-all already-done sanctification. What we loosely call “progressive sanctification” is always by grace through faith, just like initial salvation.
Go Terry!!! Yaaaaaaaa Terry!!!! I love those New Calvinist guys that just come right and say sanctification is by the same grace that saved us, which is monergistic, soooo—you fill in the blank. Will the next Piper Tweet be, “Yaaaaaa Terry!!!!!”? Bresson didn’t follow-up on Rayburn’s comment, go figure.
Here, let me help also by quoting their Reformed daddy, RC Sproul. I agree with Sproul, this is a simple thing:
Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
As far as Rayburn’s candid comment about how the NC crowd views the law, especially John Piper, here is what Sproul said in the same book:
From the law comes knowledge of sin. Also from the law comes knowledge of Righteousness.
In working with God to be “set apart,” the law is an absolute must, and Bresson’s belief as he alludes to above that the Bible is a gospel narrative and not for instruction in sanctification is antinomianism of the baser sort. And obviously, if we believe use of the law propagates sin—that’s a whole other issue as well.
This is a simple thing: “I can DO all things through Chrsit who strengthens me.” We DO and Chrsit strengthens, and it’s a seamless experience—not a New Calvinist either all the Spirit or all me hermeneutic. But Sproul has it right; if we don’t work—neither does the Spirit: “I must work and God will work.” That’s why we will be judged in the end at the Bema Seat judgment that New Calvinists have to deny. Not a judgment for justification, but a judgment in regard to how well we appropriated the gifts God granted us. And by the way, when you receive a “gift”—you now own it!
The only thing confusing is the double-speak New Calvinist have to use to teach that Jesus obeys for us without actually saying it. And Special K might as well give up because antinomians rarely repent.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
55 comments