Let’s Not Forget That Sonship / Gospel Sanctification / New Calvinism Is Not a Theological Discussion, But a Life Discussion
I was recently sent a link for an article written for the Reformation 21 blog by William B. Evans. The article was a very apt articulation of Sonship theology in regard to showing its error. In the first paragraph, he cites one of the contemporary fathers of intestinal fortitude, Jason Hood, who has challenged New Calvinism by coining the phrase, “sanctification by justification.” Evans mentioned him in conjunction with Hood challenging Tullian Tchividjian’s assertion that being called an antinomian validates one’s gospel ministry. Welcome to our day. A day in which having a goal of being called an antinomian doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an antinomian. Apparently, when the apostles predicted there would be “many” false teachers in the last days, they never saw New Calvinism coming and the ushering in of “many” Tchividjian like “reformers” instead.
Tchividjian, supposedly an example of one of the worst Sonship offenders, seemed to be the subject of Evans’ post (Again, Evans did a great job of exposing the doctrine’s serious error and the post should be read by all: http://goo.gl/9AgD7 ). After summarizing Hood’s contention, he moved on to the back and forth between Tchividjian and New Calvinist Kevin DeYoung. Apparently, DeYoung thinks the movement may come across as thinking that “effort” is a four-letter word. Actually, “obey” is the word that DeYoung thinks has four letters, and he never mentioned any specific applications for “effort.” Nevertheless, Evans rightly points out that DeYoung presented good arguments for an overly passive approach to sanctification. But in the third and final exchange between the two New Calvinists, and unlike Hood in his follow-up exchanges, DeYoung clearly vacillated and patched things up with Tchividjian.
Which now brings me to my point. Evans cites DeYoung as saying the following: “In this context DeYoung the pastor speaks of those in the church ‘who are confused, wondering why sanctification isn’t automatically flowing from their heartfelt commitment to gospel-drenched justification.’” In other words, DeYoung knows the ramifications, but will not separate himself from the New Calvinist movement. Evans also wrote the following: “In other words, the questions raised in these blog exchanges are important; the contrast in views is rather stark, and the time is ripe for further discussion.” I like his use of the word “stark,” but further “discussion”?
This issue needs way more than discussion! Tchividjian is representative of the New Calvinist perspective, and with it the belief that views similar to the ones Hood espoused are a false gospel, leading to the loss of justification—being interpreted: your not saved. Want proof? Well, Evans mentioned that the issue needs to be further engaged because of the involvement of theological heavy-weights like Michael Horton, so I will quote him to make my point:
“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” (p. 62 Christless Christianity [emphasis mine]).
This dastardly belief among New Calvinist often leads to marriages in counseling situations being judged as mixed because one spouse will not accept Sonship theology. Do you think the “stark” contrast in these two theologies could cause problems in a marriage? And once in counseling, how much more damage will be done when one spouse is declared an unbeliever? The theology causes marriage problems, then the counseling formed by the theology makes the problem worse! Furthermore, change by putting off unbiblical wisdom and putting on biblical wisdom via obedience will not be the emphasis of this counseling, but rather a “beholding as a way of becoming.” It’s a recipe for disaster! How many spiritually maimed Christians are there who are told that the primary remedy is preaching the gospel to themselves everyday? Discussion? What the….are you kidding me?
Everybody admits this doctrine is causing confusion among Christians—even some New Calvinist themselves. That fact is talked about like it’s just no big deal. Well, tell Christ it’s no big deal, but don’t take me with you—just thinking about it makes me shudder. In addition, bad theology always profoundly effects the lives of Christians. Therefore, theological discussions of this magnitude should always have teeth, and if Tullian Tchividjian, or Michael Horton, or Al Mohler, or John Piper, or Mark Devers, or Tim Keller, or David Powlison, or Jerry Bridges, or DA Carson, or John MacArthur, or anyone else won’t repent, let them be treated like publicans and tax collectors. We are either in the ministry for people or to keep the peace with those obsessed with visions of grandeur. Discussion? Yes. But if necessary, separation also.
paul
Brinsmead’s Second “Awakening” Framework is the Foundation of New Calvinism
I recently read an article written by Martin L. Carey entitled, “Judged by the Gospel: The Progression of Brinsmead’s Awakening.” Carey was the son of Iris Carey, a staunch follower of Brinsmead during the Awakening movement of which he was the central figure.
According to Carey, this was no small movement within Adventist circles:
“For three decades, the ‘Brinsmead Agitation’ challenged Adventist leadership on several continents. During the years I was growing up, the conflict over his teachings became so intense that showing any agreement with Brinsmead’s heresy could get one expelled—and this I saw firsthand. Many pastors lost their jobs or left the ministry voluntarily because they espoused Brinsmead’s theology. For his followers, even mentioning the name of Brinsmead could put one’s membership at risk. Moreover, much Adventist literature published in the 1970’s was aimed at correcting Brinsmead’s influence.”
Carey does a good job of explaining Adventist doctrine and how Brinsmead interacted with it, but let me give you the short version: In justification, all of a saint’s past sins are forgiven, but then Christians have to work for moral perfection to be completely justified at the judgment. The first theological framework that laid the foundation for Brinsmead’s Awakening movement was borrowed from protestant beliefs; specifically, that we stand in the judgment clothed in Christ’s righteousness, not our own. This is what makes us fit for the judgment. Carey further explains:
“This was the original ‘Awakening Message.’ For many Adventists who had lived in dread of God’s judgment, this was good news. As Brinsmead later described,
‘…it was the most sweet and joyful news that many had ever heard. Neither time nor circumstances…can efface the memory of souls weeping for joy at the simple revelation that Christ is our righteousness in judgment’(Review of Awakening, Pt. 1).
Brinsmead decided to leave Avondale in 1958 to speak independently and to publish. His following soon became a significant movement in Australia. By 1960, they called themselves the ‘Sanctuary Awakening Fellowship.’ Even though the Australian Adventist leadership strenuously opposed the Awakening, the movement spread. Inevitably, on December 19, 1960, the Awakening message came to America, and the General Conference had no idea what was about to hit them.”
This is when Carey’s mother began to follow Brinsmead:
“In 1961, a young mother of three named Iris Carey was among those who heard and ‘wept for joy.’ She lived a few blocks from the Review and Herald building in Tacoma Park, and she began excitedly and widely circulating Brinsmead sermon tapes. Some caught that excitement, others strongly resisted. (Indifference was not a typical Adventist reaction to Brinsmead.) Meanwhile, for the three of us who were kids of Iris Carey, tension with our church and the world was a constant reality. In spite of its polarizing message and charismatic leader, the Awakening movement never tried to be a separate denomination. Indeed, Brinsmead’s purpose was not to destroy Adventism but to restore it to its original judgment day urgency [due to the fact that many knew in their heart that they could not obtain perfection on their own and preferred not to discuss it while playing along with a token recognition of the doctrine]. In the 1960’s, most Awakeners, as we called ourselves, remained members of Adventist churches—that is, as long as they would have us…. Iris was expelled from several churches for giving out Brinsmead literature and for holding unauthorized Bible studies. For her, this persecution confirmed the prophetic status of the Awakening message, and throughout the movement it unified Awakeners into a distinct Adventist subculture.”
Then Carey explains the following:
“The resulting abundance of literature and tapes galvanized our movement’s mission and kept it moving. Additionally, Bob Brinsmead was constantly adjusting his message. Whenever Awakeners would meet they would ask one another, ‘Have you heard the latest?’ We always looked for the next church-shaking new emphasis. Brinsmead had a genius for building elaborate theological structures, getting everyone excited, then tearing them down for a ‘new framework.’ He often said, ‘Like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, I keep moving my tent in faith.’ There was no resting for the devoted Awakener following Brinsmead’s mercurial leading.”
The second theological framework Brinsmead developed before he abandoned the Awakening movement lives on today in the form of New Calvinism. The doctrine was developed when Brinsmead began researching the Reformers:
“In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw [supposedly] that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact. The apostle said,
‘And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified’ (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
‘The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.”
Brinsmead’s theological frame eliminated the extra “step” of sanctification from the gospel. Not only that, the gospel was completely objective and an “outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.” So, the believer does not (supposedly) experience a righteousness that he possesses through the new birth, in Brinsmead’s second frame, that’s “subjective”:
“True sanctification looks away from self and flows from the finished, objective work of Christ…. For many Christians, the glory of the crucified Christ is not their focus; instead they seek internal experiences that eclipse the cross. The Awakening rightly opposed the subjective, human-centered emphasis found among some groups within Christianity. Wrongly, they reacted with a cerebral, spiritless gospel. Brinsmead strongly opposed the charismatic movement’s emphasis on experiences as a return to the theology of Rome. However, going to another extreme, Present Truth magazine decried ‘the false gospel of the new birth,’ and offered a new birth that was merely a corporate, objective blessing, not an individual experience.”
Though mainline Adventist were at the other extreme, propagating a justification that you had to keep on your own, they rightly complained that Brinsmead’s new frame was a “justification-centered gospel” that “encouraged spiritual laziness.” During that time, the project that was solidifying this doctrine into a “consistent” theological framework was the Australian Forum. Their doctrinal publication was Plain Truth magazine mentioned by Carey. The primary Australian three were Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy. The writings of Graeme Goldsworthy are a mainstay of contemporary New Calvinism, especially the “Goldsworthy Trilogy.” This “justification-centered gospel” can be seen among many New Calvinists like CJ Mahaney who continually claim that the gospel can be defined by five words: “Christ died for our sins.” Like the Australian Forum, New Calvinists believe that all of life flows from objective justification and deny the new birth as a subjective truth that is not relevant to the more important matter of the gospel. This regardless of the fact that Christ said, “You must be born again.” Hence, Sonship Theology, which is based on the centrality of the objective gospel and helped give birth to New Calvinism, propagates a total depravity of the saints. Well known New Calvinists David Powlison and Tim Keller were forefathers of that movement.
That’s pretty much the smoking gun: the hallmark of Brinsmead’s centrality of the objective gospel necessitates the denial of the new birth, and central figures of the New Calvinist movement clearly deny the new birth accordingly; for example, Graeme Goldsworthy and Michael Horton. Goldsworthy said this in an article he wrote in Plain Truth Magazine: “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as nineteenth-century liberalism” (Obituary for the Old Testament Vol. 41-Article 2). Goldsworthy footnoted this statement by referencing an article by Paxton entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth” (Present Truth Vol. 7 Article 3 June 1978 ps. 17-22). In that article, Paxton made the following statement: “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.”
Compare that with what Michael Horton wrote in Receiving Christ (from his out of print book In the Face of God): “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own ‘Spirit-filled” life?’”
New Calvinists who do not plainly deny the new birth do so practically by advocating the total depravity of the saints and the idea that Christians are spiritually dead. Paul David Tripp states plainly that Christians are still spiritually dead on pages 64 and 65 of the 2006 printing of “How People Change.” Concerning a video that is a satire on total depravity entitled “John Piper is Bad,” Piper concurred in an interview that the point of the video was theologically true, Christians are still “bad” in regard to our behavior.
paul
Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” Part 4: Mr. Holland Was For Obedience Before He was Against It, And The Sonship / AF Connection
On pages 46 through 56 (most of chapter 4), Holland makes a case that the book of Job is all about Christ. Of course, New Calvinist believe every verse in the Bible is about Christ so that’s no surprise. Though I believe his exegesis is a stretch to come to that conclusion, these pages are by far the less ghastly so far and have some merit. In addition to making this point, he seems to slightly redefine the word transcendence as primarily the difference between two things, rather than something that is superior or not confined by immanence. I know, this seems like nitpicking, but Holland seems to use his primary definition to make some sort of strict dichotomy between the Son and the Father that effects how we perceive the Trinity, and such dichotomies tend to make me suspicious. Not only that, it’s eerily similar to the “objective” part of COG (the centrality of the objective gospel) which teaches that gospel reality is completely outside of us. This can subtly set up a prism that requires all realities about the Father to be seen through the Son, rendering the Father as true, but insignificant when compared to Christ; and in fact, our biggest problem—with Christ coming to the rescue. Of course, there is some truth to that, but that approach also makes me uncomfortable with what seems like an unbalanced view of the Trinity that can lead to bad places.
Nevertheless, what follows is much easier to expound on. On page 59, Holland reiterates what makes GS what it is: contemplative spirituality. Holland states on page 59: “In other words, we see Christ now, and the more we know Him and the more we study Him, the more we become like the clear image we see of Him. Looking for [emphasis mine. This is supposedly what job one is for Christians when reading their Bible] and seeing and gazing [my emphasis] at the excellencies, the glories of Jesus leads to greater vision, sharper focus, deeper awareness of Jesus and His permanent abiding presence. It elevates the soul to a higher vantage point of worship. We must learn to stare at the Son of God such that we are blinded to all the allurements of the world! All encumbrances aside, all slack hardeness aside, everything aside but…Him.”
Along with this statement being a superb specimen of how GS instructs followers to read the Bible, looking for Jesus only; and specifically, his “excellencies” and “glories,” the statement shows the kinship between GS and Sonship Theology. In a book Jay Adams’ wrote to warn the church about Sonship, he wrote the following:
“The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.”
And,
“Certainly, all of us may frequently look back to the time when we became sons and rejoice in the fact, but there is no directive to do so for growth, or even an example of this practice, in the New Testament….The true reminder of the good news about Jesus’ death for our sins is the one that he left for us to observe-the Lord’s supper (‘Do this in remembrance of Me’).”
Holland follows this up on page 60 and 61 with the usual GS slight of hand. On page 60, using John 14:21 as a point of reference, he makes several orthodox statements concerning obedience. He seems to be clearly saying that obedience is the gateway to a deeper love for Christ. He seems to be saying the same thing Christ is clearly saying in that text: obedience to Christ is synonymous with loving Him. In other words, obedience is a loving act (John 3:16).
I used to become perplexed by these sudden bursts of orthodoxy after reading page after page of “truth” seasoned with nuance because God’s people are not yet ready to accept that we have been supposedly living under a false gospel for the past 100 years. I calmly read pages 60-61 while enjoying a nice lunch Susan fixed for me. Two all beef patties smothered in pepper-jack cheese and jalapeños. No buns because I’m on a low-carb diet that is working fabulously (email me at pmd@inbox.com if you want the details). She also brought me a glass of tea sweetened with something other than sugar, but it was really good. Before I finished the last bite, Holland began to explain exactly what he means by “obedience” on page 61. He was for it on page 60, but on page 61, well, you see, what Jesus meant in John 14:21 is love and obedience are the same thing.
But you say: “Paul, that agrees with what you just said was orthodox!” Not exactly. I said that obedience is an act among many that is a demonstration of love. On page 61, Holland makes the point that they are the same thing, but obedience must be defined by love, and now we must ask ourselves what “love” is. Hmmmmm—get you hand on your wallet:
“So what does it mean to love Jesus? Yes, we’ve already seen obedience. That’s a given [I’m sure]. But [just like the “But”Light commercial: “Here we go!”] true Christians are distinguished from unbelievers not only by their obedience, but by their love for Christ. Let this question echo in your soul: Do you love Christ? Is He precious to you, as He was to Peter? Is He the hub of your faith and your life, [and here is the crux:] or have you made Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?”
NOTE, after saying obedience and love are intrinsically connected, he makes a dichotomy that is impossible to distinguish in real life. How can one possibly distinguish Godly obedience from making “Christianity something of a way to live instead of a person to love?” It’s a false dichotomy that forces the reader to decide whether true love is a way of life or a “person to love.” And again, and again, regardless of a calling to live in a new way throughout Holy Writ, Holland does not qualify the statement.
HOWEVER, Holland then defines what this true love is on pages 61-67 after the pesky subject of obedience is relegated to its proper place in the back of the bus. He then breaks down a “biblical” definition of love into three categories: Love And Faith (p.61), Love And Understanding (p.64), and Love And Affections (p.66).
In the first segment, “Love And Faith,” Holland clearly shows this book’s kinship with the Australian Forum. I devote a whole chapter in my book, “Another Gospel” to Robert Brinsmead’s interpretive prism as taught by him and Paxton / Goldsworthy. Following this post, a full copy of that chapter can be viewed. On page 62, Holland describes faith as the “eye of the soul.” He then writes that Scripture is the lens used by faith and the Holy Spirit illuminates Scripture for one purpose and one purpose only: “Suddenly the Bible comes alive and we see Christ’s excellence, His splendor!” Hence, this is the EXACT position of the AF: the Bible’s only purpose is to obtain a deeper knowledge of the gospel, and the Holy Spirit will not illuminate anything else but that. Holland writes on page 63: “There must be a faith that engages with God’s Word on Jesus and estimates it to be the most important information in the world” [which then becomes the interpretive mode of operation].
Therefore, the Bible is for the purpose of plunging the depths of seeing the glory of Christ and nothing else. Any other information in the Bible that seems to be contrary to that thesis is descriptions of what Christ has done and should teach us more about Him instead of being an instruction book for a different “way to live.” All of the commands in the Bible are meant to show us what Christ has done for us already, and to humble us because we can’t keep all of them perfectly anyway. As I heard one pastor say from a pulpit about three months ago: “You can’t keep all of God’s law anyway, so don’t even try.” Pondering the volume of commands should also drive us to the foot of the cross and more dependence on Christ. Supposedly.
Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that obedience is a natural result of “Staring At The Son” (the actual title of chapter 5). But how do we know when we are committing the horrible sin of “obeying Jesus in our own efforts?” Well, because it will FEEL like it—that’s how you supposedly know, and Holland emphasizes that point throughout the rest of chapter 5. Throughout the book, Holland reiterates the same worn-out GS points made by Francis Chan (“When it’s love, it feels like love”), John Piper (“Beholding as a way of becoming” and joy is synonymous with faith), Paul David Trip (Christians are still spiritually dead), and Michael Horton (we only grow spiritually when we “revisit the gospel afresh”). The following is the chapter of my future book where the AF view of interpretation is dealt with—which is the same approach propagated by Holland:
By Request: A Summary Of The New Calvinist Genealogy Chart; Part 1 / Introduction
The contemporary history of New Calvinism begins with Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens. They are the fathers of New Calvinism. Between my interview with Brinsmead and an informal document written by Zens I found on the internet—this is apparent. Brinsmead started a project called the Australian Forum (he wanted me to note that it was one of many projects that focused on certain subjects) that sought to articulate a gospel-centered sanctification into a unified, consistent systematic theology. One of the major considerations was a focus on covenant theology in relationship to this endeavor. Jon Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology, but it is clear that Brinsmead had a major influence in the formulation of that doctrine. All of this took place in the 70’s. So, New Calvinism has been around for about 35 years in various forms. It is primarily based on the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). COG is the very heart of New Calvinism. Though NC has many different expressions, this doctrine is the heartbeat that drives it.
The Forum was having a significant impact on two spheres of Christianity in the 70’s and early 80’s; namely, Reformed Baptist and Westminster Seminary. Zens was a Reformed Baptist and also a student at Westminster. Zens taught a Sunday School class where his ideas on New Testament ethics were being presented, and Westminster students attended those studies. Michael Horton was infatuated with the Forum’s teachings, and COG can be seen in many of his teachings throughout his career. Keep in mind, the Forum’s magazine, Present Truth, and later, Verdict, according to Zens, had the largest readership among all Evangelical publications at that time. Apparently, Zens was initially introduced to the Forum by receiving Present Truth while he was a student at Westminster, and eventually formed a close relationship with Brinsmead. Also, G. Goldsworthy’s involvement in the Forum as one the AF three is one of the interesting the top is the same as the bottom in the genealogy chart. Till this day, the Goldsworthy Trilogy is a mainstay of New Calvinism’s Gospel Theology. Again, at the very heart of Goldsworthy’s Trilogy is COG. Goldsworthy was close to Brinsmead, and Brinsmead learned his Hebrew skills from Goldsworthy.
Zens, with the help of several men who are now the who’s who of New Covenant Theology while Zens is in the background (probably because of his connections with Brinsmead), attempted to propagate the doctrine, yet unnamed, via the Baptist Reformation Review . Zens received a very zealous contention from other Reformed Baptist such as Walter Chantry. At that time, Brinsmead wrote several articles defending Zens’ doctrine in the BRR. According to Zens:
“A sort of (unintended) [I doubt that] culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom [a book Chantry wrote to contend against COG, though he saw it as neo-antinomianism, which is also a correct assertion] and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel [“NT approach to law and gospel” is a present-day NC mantra] was stated forcefully by RDB:
‘[Paul’s] appeals on how to live are made on the basis of what God has done for us in Christ. It is in view of God’s gospel mercies that we are to present our lives as a living sacrifice to God (Rom.12:1-3) . . . . Paul virtually never appeals to the law – ‘Thou shalt not.’ When he demands certain behavior of the church, he appeals instead to the holy history of Christ . . . and from that stand point then makes his ethical appeal.’”
Note here, and this is very important: the Forum’s the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event can be seen in Brinsmead’s statement cited by Zens above, which is a pillar of Gospel Sanctification till this day, and originated in COG doctrine by the AF. Chantry and others effectively beat COG within an inch of its life, and the doctrine, coined by Zens one year later as “New Covenant Theology” (in 1981), continued on in a meager existence among Continental Baptist. Most likely, John Piper was introduced to COG among Reformed Baptist and was probably well aware of the controversy. The wherewithal of his injection of Christian Hedonism into the movement is sketchy at this time and needs extensive investigation which I will do Lord willing.
Meanwhile, COG was finding new life at Westminster Seminary. In fact, Brinsmead and the Forum met with the Westminster faculty in the I think early 80’s, I will add references to this summary later. Brinsmead remembers little about the meeting other than he noted that the faculty served pork to him and the other forum members which he suspected was deliberate due to the Forum’s connection with Adventism. I informed him that it was deliberate because they were incited to do so by Jay Adams (a faculty member at the time) who was not a happy camper that the meeting took place. Brinsmead stated that one individual present at the meeting seemed to be an “elder statesman” of Westminster. I’m guessing it was Edmund Clowney.
At this point, COG, as the face of the AF disappears, leaving behind its remnants with Continental Baptist because Robert Brinsmead departed from orthodox Christianity all together. But the heart of COG incited a new movement begun by Westminster professor John “Jack” Miller called “Sonship Theology.” Again, COG met stiff resistance in Presbyterian circles under the new name of Sonship. Leading the charge was Dr. Jay Adams who also knew Jack Miller personally. His contention against Sonship is well documented in his book, “Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation Of The Sonship Discipleship Course.” Unfortunately, the book is out of print. One may well note: Some big dogs of the present-day New Calvinists movement; specifically, Tim Keller and David Powlison, were disciples of Jack Miller and his Sonship program. Tim Keller’s propagation of Sonship is well known and documented. At a conference conducted at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical, Powlison specifically cited Miller as his “mentor” and ridiculed Adams for criticizing Miller while failing to mention that the “criticism” was in the form of a book—which I am sure slipped his mind. Miller is the one who coined the phrase often aped by Jerry Bridges: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Funny, while an elder at a reformed church in the mid-nineties, I heard Jerry Bridges say that without realizing what a profound effect that little phrase would have on my life ten years later.
But with COG again under heavy fire and the Sonship coat of arms being shot full of holes, “Sonship” was replaced with “gospel,” ie., “gospel-driven” this, and “gospel-centered” that. The movement was now underground, but steadily growing while avoiding labels like the plague. Take note: for almost ten years between 2000 and 2009, the movement was nameless. The name “New Calvinism” is very recent and was attached because movements that become massive cannot avoid a label. Meanwhile, David Powlison had been busy for a number of years integrating Jack Miller’s form of COG into “biblical counseling” through his Dynamics of Biblical Change which became the basis for biblical counseling at Westminser Seminary. Hence, different players were at work making COG relevant to different areas of Christian theology and life that were important to them in making COG work. Brinsmead conceived the primary foundation (with other Reformed elements not unique with him—what he called “jewels” that contributed to what was important to him) and helped Zens formulate the covenant theology. Goldsworthy integrated COG into hermeneutics and eschatology with a little bit of Gabler and Vos mixed in for good measure. Piper contributed to the experience / emotional aspect, and Powlison was paramount in his contribution to the life application part; otherwise, COG would be more vulnerable to its unbiblical passivity in the sanctification process.
Unbeknown to many in the biblical counseling movement, the integration of COG into biblical counseling, primarily in David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart that came out of Westminster’s DBC, was at the core of tensions between NANC and CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary (other than the integration of Psychology as well, but COG deserves infamous merit there as well). Eventually, CCEF’s influence totally infected NANC with the disease, and NANC advocates act as if the cupbearer, upon realizing he has tested a deadly cup, should use his last words to compliment the superb taste of the drink. Eventually, disciples of David Powlison; Paul David Trip and Timothy Lane, wrote a book that articulated COG’s supposed life application in the book, How People Change. The centrality of the objective gospel (COG) and all of its elements are glaringly obvious in the book—almost as if it was written by Robert Brinsmead himself.
Starting in, or about 2004, Christians began to realize something was wrong, but because the movement had no label, other than, “gospel” (and who is going to diss the “gospel”?), many simply just remained confused as to what this was all about. However, I was in a unique situation at the time. I was in a church that was on the cutting edge of the movement for many reasons. In NANC’s glory days, this church was a training center for biblical counselors. The church was eventually infected by COG via CCEF’s influence over NANC, and Reformed Baptists who joined the same afoermentioned church who were of the Jon Zens persuasion. Once I knew something didn’t smell right, I spent several months researching and interacting with the elders of that church. Their story, which of course I didn’t buy, was that COG has been historically true all along, and a Reformation was afoot. Eventually, after hundreds of hours of conversation / debate with these elders and my own research, I named the movement “Gospel Sanctification” and started a blog called the “Berean Call” which later became PPT. Initially, I thought the movement was confined to those group of elders (who are all men drunk with visions of grandeur), and they were trying to formulate a system that made Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, NCT, and redemptive-historical hermeneutics work together as a unified theology. Four years later, I came to realize that they were a mere reflection of a total package.
About a year ago, I received a book from an individual whom I suspect knew that there was a connection between Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology, but wanted me to see it for myself. The connection was immediately seen in the first 100 words of Adams’ book. After much more research, it looked like Jack Miller was the father of Gospel Sanctification, but I was haunted by a few things. GS seemed to need NCT’s view of the law to function without contradiction. Also, all elements of Sonship and the historical connections were easy to match with GS, but NCT theology seemed to be dropped in out of nowhere. Of course, it didn’t surprise me that the elders of the church I was a member of or CCEF never uttered the name, “Sonship” because that would supply Christians with an interpretive prism that could expose them. Then, several months later, by accident, I stumbled upon an article that mentioned the Australian Forum and how it had a profound effect on the theological mindset of Michael Horton. That prompted me to say to myself, “Oh really?” “What is the Australian Forum?” Well, the rest is history.
Future parts will put veneer on the framework posted here, but any clarifying questions are welcome.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment