Clearcreek Chapel’s “All in the Family”
“I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.” ~ Robert Brinsmead
Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio is a good representation of the kinship between all of the elements in our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). One of the joys of this ministry is reconnecting family members with long-lost relatives. It is intriguing to see how remnants of the genealogy chart are all gathered at the bottom—thirty-something years later, but with family members like Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens (the original patriarchs) missing. Heartbreaking.
Not only that, credit is not being given where credit is due; for example, Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology, which pumped new life into the centrality of the objective gospel (aka Gospel Sanctification and New Covenant Theology) after it received a brutal beating from Walter Chantry and others on the left side of the chart, is never mentioned at T4G, TGC, and SGM gatherings, even though the primary disciples of Jack Miller (Tim Keller and David Powlison) are major players in those movements. Could it be because the Sonship label was shot full of holes by Jay Adams and Chad Van Dixhoorn on the right side of the chart? It would really do my heart good to see the Sonship label proudly displayed at the 2012 T4G. I mean, we’re talking family here.
Though I will be writing about many of these bottom-of-the chart family reunions, Clearcreek Chapel is an excellent specimen. The “elder” in charge of their “adult education” is Christian radio personality Chad Bresson, who authors a blog dedicated to Geerhardus Vos. Bresson is a member of the Earth Stove Society which promotes New Covenant Theology. Bresson has recently posted a lengthy article on eighty elements of New Covenant Theology followed by four articles on the writings of Graeme Goldsworthy. Also, a post by Bresson that articulates how New Calvinists interpret the Bible using a lengthy excerpt from the writings of Robert Brinsmead drew a lot of heat from some readers: http://goo.gl/qbeS4 .
Bresson was a recent speaker at the John Bunyan Convention which is a yearly conference that fictitiously uses the name of Bunyan to promote New Covenant Theology (NCT). This year’s conference included two primary figures of NCT, Fred Zaspel and John Reisinger. The conference was held at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA and I have not ascertained whether or not it is a Continental Baptist church which are a small fellowship of NCT churches that split from Reformed Baptist circles over the NCT issue. The debate that fueled the split was primarily between the father of NCT, Jon Zens, and Walter Chantry. Reformed Baptist protestants staunchly proclaimed NCT to be Antinomianism and were not the least bit apologetic about the accusation. Jon Zens is now in the background, probably because of his close association with the likable, but controversial Robert Brinsmead.
While Bresson shows Clearcreek’s kinship with Jon Zens, Brinsmead, and Goldsworthy, the Chapel leadership as a group focuses heavily on David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart ( http://goo.gl/8UnBe ) and John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. In fact, the pastor of Clearcreek is a well known rabid follower of John Piper. It is my understanding that Piper’s Christian Hedonism is presented yearly in the adult Sunday school class. Paul David Tripp is a frequent speaker there and the Chapel was one of the pilot churches that “tested” Tripp’s book How People Change, which is based on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change.
The common thread that ties all of the family members together is the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). This core thread (COG) was primarily developed by Brinsmead and Zens. Though it includes what Brinsmead describes (in our interview) as a collection of jewels, there is no doubt that Brinsmead and Zens formulated the basic systematic theology that makes its present-day life possible. In regard to any such system prior to the Forum, Brinsmead stated: “I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.”
COG states that all spiritual growth comes from contemplating the gospel outside of us. Any truth that is placed in the same priority at any given time is said to eclipse Christ. Inside considerations (the inner us [subjective]) would be included, which relegates the new birth to a position of insignificance—paving the way for the total depravity of the saints, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (coined by Jack Miller and aped excessively by Jerry Bridges). As this foundational thread (system) has weaved through contemporary church history, it has been endowed with an explanation of how it is experienced (Christian Hedonism); how it applies to life (Heart Theology); its view of covenants (New Covenant Theology); and an interpretive model that enables outcomes that fit together logically (The Goldsworthy Trilogy [research on how the Dutch Reformed movement and Vos may have influenced Goldsworty is still pending]).
In an introduction to a Christian Hedonism class at Clearcreek Chapel, Chad Bresson said, “This is what makes us unique.” While one wonders why the goal is to be unique, we all can agree that it’s family that makes it all so special.
paul
Elyse Fitzpatrick, The Antinomian, says Antinomianism Doesn’t Exist
Sigh. The latest novelty among New Calvinist is to teach that Antinomianism doesn’t exist. Elyse Fitzpatrick, who Justin Taylor called the greatest gospel-centered writer among women, posted a hypothetical open letter to an antinomian.
In the letter, she limits the definition of an antinomian to those who use grace as a license to sin, and then insinuates that such a person is a myth:
“Dear Mr. Antinomian,
Forgive me for writing to you in such an open forum but I’ve been trying to meet you for years and we just never seem to connect. While it’s true that I live in a little corner of the States and while it’s true that I am, well, a woman, I did assume that I would meet you at some point in my decades old counseling practice. But alas, neither you nor any of your (must be) thousands of brothers and sisters have ever shown up for my help…So again, please do pardon my writing in such a public manner but, you see, I’ve got a few things to say to you and I think it’s time I got them off my chest.”
Fitzpatrick (hereafter EF) offers the suggestion that she has never met an antinomian in her counseling practice as a profound indictment against the idea of Antinomianism. Sigmund Freud didn’t meet any antinomians in all of his years of counseling either. It doesn’t mean anything when those looking have a distorted view of Scripture, and obviously, EF would be no exception to that. The English word, “antinomianism” is a biblical word. It is the word “anomia” in the Bible and means: without the law; against the law; lawless; lawlessness. Paul called the Antichrist the “anomia one,” and the “man of antinomianism.” Paul also said that we are in an age where the “mystery of antinomianism doth already work.” Christ said that in the latter days, because of antinomianism, “the hearts of many would wax cold.” Christ also said that He would say to many at the judgment, “Depart from me, you workers of antinomianism (anomia), I never knew you.”
For EF to deny antinomianism is patently absurd, but she continues to deny the reality with the following paragraph:
“I wonder if you know how hard you’re making it for those of us who love to brag about the gospel. You say that you love the gospel and grace too, but I wonder how that can be possible since it’s been continuously reported to me that you live like such a slug. I’ve even heard that you are lazy and don’t work at obeying God at all…Rather you sit around munching on cigars and Twinkies, brewing beer and watching porn on your computer. Mr. A, really! Can this be true?”
Yes Elyse, it can be true because your really thick gospel narrative tells us so. Of course, hundreds of verses could be cited other than this: “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.” The apostle Paul also wrote specifically about “Mr. Antinomian[‘s]” mentality that EF presents as myth: “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” This clearly demonstrates EF’s rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture.
Ef then continues in a New Calvinist approved pastime—erecting straw men:
“So many of my friends and acquaintances are simply up in arms about the way you act and they tell me it’s because you talk too much about grace. They suggest (and I’m almost tempted to agree) that what you need is more and more rules to live by. In fact, I’m very tempted to tell you that you need to get up off your lazy chair, pour your beer down the drain, turn off your computer and get about the business of the Kingdom.”
This is the false accusation that Evangelicals blame grace for Antinomianism; when in fact, the complaint is against a form of Antinomianism known as contemplative spirituality. This is the belief that contemplating the gospel leads to Christ obeying for us. In other words, Antinomianism can approach against the law in several different ways, including the denial that we have been enabled to keep it and are obligated to do so. EF continues in her false accusations via straw men by rewording the evangelical belief in repentance in petty terms: “….what you need is more and more rules to live by.” Notice the “more and more” emphasis that implies a piling on of what we cannot bear as a solution. This, in fact, reveals EF for the antinomian that she is. Evangelicals see “more and more” rules as not just “rules,” but the wisdom of God that sets us free from the former bondage of living in ignorance of how to properly think and act in a way that pleases God.
Ef continues in her shameless twisting of Scripture:
“I admit that I’m absolutely flummoxed, though, which is why I’m writing as I am. You puzzle me. How can you think about all that Christ has done for you, about your Father’s steadfast, immeasurable, extravagantly generous love and still live the way you do? Have you never considered the incarnation, about the Son leaving ineffable light to be consigned first to the darkness of Mary’s womb and then the darkness of this world? Have you never considered how He labored day-after-day in His home, obeying His parents, loving His brothers and sisters so that you could be counted righteous in the sight of His Father? Have you forgotten the bloody disgrace of the cross you deserve? Don’t you know that in the resurrection He demolished sin’s power over you? Aren’t you moved to loving action knowing that He’s now your ascended Lord Who prays for you and daily bears you on His heart? Has your heart of stone never been warmed and transformed by the Spirit? Does this grace really not impel zealous obedience? Hello…Are you there?”
Yes he’s there Elyse, whether you believe it or not. The New Calvinist denial of a battle between the flesh in us and our regenerated spirit can be seen here. The astute Bible student will see many assumptions in the above statement that denies that the flesh wars against us, and assumes that the flesh lays down in surrender as we obtain a deeper and deeper understanding of what Christ accomplished for us, while denying that applying His wisdom to life also gives us a deeper understanding of the former person we were saved from. When the biblical dynamic of inner warfare with the flesh is denied (which is the case, particularly in the NC counseling culture that EF is part of [note the Adams/Welch debate on heart/flesh]), other assumptions tend to fill the void; such as, the perfect obedience of Christ being imputed to us in order to replace any obedience we might perform (because perfect obedience from believers is supposedly required to complete justification[double imputation]), and musings concerning what Christ experienced in Mary’s womb.
The last paragraph is really just a summation of the rest, but she closes with this:
“Again, please do forgive me for calling you out like this. I really would like to meet you. I am,
Trusting in Grace Alone,
Elyse”
Elyse, please forgive me for calling you out like this as well, but as JC Ryle said, it is not proper to say that we are sanctified by faith alone as your departure phrase implies, even though you use the word “trusting” to cover your tracks. And for efficiency sake, let me introduce you to Mrs. Antinomian instead of her husband—look in the mirror.
paul
The Significance of Kevin DeYoung’s Top Ten
“However, it is my hope that [DeYoung] will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our ‘sanctification tool belt,’ that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.”
“One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.”
“Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt; they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them.”
Kevin DeYoung, hereafter, “Special K” (SK), recently wrote a third post
( http://shar.es/HeU1Q ) clarifying his position on sanctification. SK wrote a prior post
( http://shar.es/HeU3w ) which was a capitulation to Tullian Tchividjian who responded to his first post on the same subject. In the second post, SK listed ten interpretive questions that he is considering while on a sabbatical for the purpose of writing a book on sanctification. The significance of these ten questions should not be missed. Those ten questions strike at the heart of New Calvinism, and it would seem that in light of his latest post, he has answered those questions in a way that is not favorable to New Calvinism. In fact, it almost seems like the latest post is in your face when compared to his response to Tchividjian’s “pushback” regarding his first post which only hinted of orthodoxy to begin with. The significance of these ten questions is the following:
1. Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
SK didn’t pull these questions out of the clouds. This question has to be asked because New Calvinist (NC) teach that God cannot be anymore pleased with us than He already is in Jesus Christ (that’s true in regard to justification). The “justified” believer, as opposed to simply, “believer” is not worded that way for no reason. Supposedly, to admit that there is something we can do to please God as believers is to take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Also, remember that the core beliefs of New Calvinism came from the Australian Forum, and their doctrine is primarily driven by the centrality of the objective gospel. In other words, the gospel is something outside of us, not inside (subjective). Inside considerations (like anything we would do [subjective]) cannot “eclipse” anything Christ has done (note: Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” will soon be available for purchase).
2. Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
This question is simply the other side of number one. New Calvinist teach that God cannot be displeased with us anymore than he can be displeased with Christ, and for the same reasons that we cannot do anything to gain more favor with God than we already have in Christ. Again, it’s not about us (subjective) and how the supposed displeasure of God would make us feel (subjective). SK seems to have answered this question for himself in the third post: “But God also motivates us by a sense of duty, by gratitude, by threats, by promises, and by the fear of the Lord.” And by the way, to NC, this statement is barely less than blaspheme.
3. Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both
trying to find a root sin?
Obviously, SK is questioning one of the four major tenets of NC: Theology of the Heart. This theology was added to NC via Sonship Theology and David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which was articulated in Paul Tripp’s “How People Change”
What Jonah knew and believed about God is what caused him to rebel. He knew God was a merciful God and would probably save the Ninevites, whom Jonah hated. That’s why he didn’t want to go there. In Jonah’s case, it was attitude, bad thinking, and a refusal to obey, not unbelief. It is evident in the book that Jonah had tremendous faith in God. But NC must make all issues in sanctification the same as justification which is primarily by faith only; so, it stands to reason that they have to make all sin issues in sanctification a belief issue. The NC position on this question is no better defended than in Tripp’s book. SK needs to read “How People Change” followed by the Donn Arms book review of HPC ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC ).
4. How are justification and sanctification related?
I think this question is now rightly, for the most part, answered by SK’s third post. I only take exception to a few statements thereof, but here is one: “Are we sanctified by remembering our justification? Yes.” SK is saying that contemplating our justification is still a viable way to grow spiritually, but he is presenting it as another tool “in our tool belt” rather than the only discipline from which all other duties flow (Dr. Peter Masters’ contention regarding Piper). However, it is my hope that SK will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our sanctification tool belt, that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.
5. Can we obey God?
This speaks to the NC doctrine of the total depravity of the saints. Again, most definitely, this originated with the Australian Forum who denied the new birth, or being born again. Michael Horton also denies the significance of the new birth and takes his cue from the Forum on that issue.
6. Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we
have done as we were commanded?
This clearly speaks to the NC belief that obedience in sanctification is synonymous with an attempt to be justified. Hence, asked another way: “Is the totally depraved believer really able to obey and know that it is legitimate obedience that pleases God?” One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.
7. How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
By describing the tools in our tool belt, not the NC belief that the Bible is only a tool for contemplating the gospel.
8. Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when
they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
No Kevin. Many Christians are walking in violation of their conscience because of what New Calvinism teaches. Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt, they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them. My brother—please flee—perhaps there is not too much blood on your hands.
9. Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness
and content with little progress in godliness)?
Of course they are! They are taught that they cannot be a part of the progress!
10. What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with
Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
It’s the antithesis of the Forum’s view that formed New Calvinism: “The centrality of the objective gospel.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment