Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 3: New Calvinism’s Bad Seed
In one of the more contemporary blogs dedicated to Christocentric hermeneutics, it happened—Robert Brinsmead appeared, and started a lot of trouble. The blog is Vossed World, authored by Chad Bresson, an elder at Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio. According to a message preached there recently by another Clearcreek elder, the leadership considers Clearcreek to be a “New Covenant Theology” church. They are also very strong on Christian Hedonism (John Piper), Heart Theology (CCEF), and Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics which is the theme of Bresson’s blog. Bresson is also a member of the Earth Stove Society (dedicated to NCT).
Bresson posted an excerpt from the writings of Brinsmead that represented the beliefs of the Australian Forum (see chart in part 2) concerning the use and interpretation of the Scriptures. The Australian Forum (hereafter “AF”) included Brinsmead, Geoffrey Paxton, and Graeme Goldsworthy. The post was brought to my attention by a reader. Though one person who commented on the post was totally unaware of it—Bresson responded to him by launching a defense regarding the relevance of Brinsmead’s apostasy:
“There are two reasons your analogy doesn’t wash: 1. Brinsmead wrote this ditty during a time of his life (as SDA, no less) when he affirmed reformed theology. That this guy is now an atheist is irrelevant. 2. What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years. In fact, given the recent articles written by the guys at Southern [see bottom of chart in part 2], what Brinsmead writes here could have just as easily have been written by one of them.”
The reader responded this way:
“I didn’t toss an ad hominem attack. I am criticizing the doctrine you are pursuing; I am not attacking you personally at all. I didn’t know this guy is now an atheist. I don’t know anything about him.”
The post and all the comments can be viewed here:
http://breusswane.blogspot.com/2008_07_17_archive.html
July of 2008 is a long way from what the AF wrote in the 1970’s. Bresson and the Chapel are respected as being on the cutting edge of New Calvinism (hereafter “NC”), and notice that he said, “What Brinsmead says here isn’t anything different than what has been posted on this blog for the past three years.” When I read the Brinsmead excerpt, I immediately recognized the fact that NC, ie., Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology (hereafter “NCGSS) needs such a hermeneutic to appear (consistent) and function consistently. My point by point rebuttal of the Brinsmead excerpt posted by Bresson can be read here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-lq
Or here: Brinsmead
This post is the first that demonstrates that the top of the proposed genealogy chart looks the same as the bottom. Bresson and the Chapel are an excellent specimen representing the NCGSS movement—yet, Bresson states that what Brinsmead wrote some thirty years ago is representative of what has been written on his blog for the past three years. Furthermore, Bresson’s blog is also replete with Graeme Goldsworthy writings, who was one of the original three that made up the AF.
So what? Well, the original doctrine of the AF was a mixture of sanctification by faith alone, Seventh-Day Adventist doctrine, and “Redemptive” Historicism. Also, all facts so far strongly indicate that Brinsmead was the primary visionary and inventor of the doctrine—and he is now an apostate—not good. Most Christians don’t buy into the idea that God used an unsaved person to reveal something “new” to God’s people, especially someone who became apostate after leaving a cult! Moreover, nobody can deny that Goldsworthy is the darling of present-day NCGSS hermeneutics, and that he was also one of the original three that made up the AF.
paul
Submitted to the Committee on Resolutions for the 2011 Southern Baptist Convention
Resolution On Distinctions Between Justification And Sanctification
June 2011
WHEREAS, A major contribution to the spiritual weakness of many Protestant denominations has been erroneous teachings in regard to sanctification; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians are sanctified by the exact same means of justification only; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians should preach the Gospel of justification to themselves everyday for sanctification purposes; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that contemplation on the Gospel of justification alone is the primary duty for the Christian, and from that one duty, all other duties find life; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that a worshipful doxology resulting from a contemplation on justification always precedes obedience acceptable to God; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that Christians need to be justified continually until glorification, and enablement to participate in sanctification has not been granted by God in any portion more than those who need to be justified; and
WHEREAS, Some teach that personal exertion by Christians in response to all that Christ has commanded in Scripture is works salvation.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, That the Southern Baptist Convention affirm Scriptural distinctions between justification and sanctification; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm these distinctions according to Scripture and those that are clearly evident in Article IV of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement. Concerning enablement in sanctification, Article IV (C) contains this statement as follows: “Sanctification is the experience, beginning in regeneration, by which the believer is set apart to God’s purposes, and is enabled to progress toward moral and spiritual maturity through the presence and power of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him.”
Concerning justification as a one-time legal declaration by God, Article IV (B) contains the following statement: “Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal upon principles of His righteousness of all sinners who repent and believe in Christ”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we believe that the Scriptures are not for the sole purpose of contemplating justification only, but rather according to Article I of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message Statement which contains the following in regard to the Scriptures: “It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. It reveals the principles by which God judges us; and therefore is, and will remain to the end of the world, the true center of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and religious opinions should be tried”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm our belief in the biblical truth that Christians are new creatures in Jesus Christ, and therefore, we also agree with Article XV of the 1925 confession which contains this statement: “There is a radical and essential difference between the righteous and wicked”; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That we affirm as true and biblical, any endeavor or teaching concerning sanctification that likens to these words written by JC Ryle: “In justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse”; and
BE IT THEREFORE FINALLY RESOLVED, That because of the aforementioned convictions commonly believed by Southern Baptists as described in these resolutions, that those who persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification, be deemed unfit as ministers or teachers of the Gospel.
Comment By “Anodos” Is Indicative Of Sonship’s Dark Spirit
All false doctrine has its consequences. It’s difficult to write about what one encounters personally with those who propagate Sonship Theology and its offspring, Gospel Sanctification, but a recent comment by “Anodos” on the Tchividjian post is telling. He commented as follows:
“The Pharisees had their doctrine nailed down – they had studied scriptures and worked on it for hundreds of years. Jesus was crucified over a doctrinal issue. The Pharisees’ understanding of that doctrine was correct, but they did not know their God even when He stood face to face with them.
Why?
You have your orthodoxy all worked out, but your spirit is the same as the Pharisee. The next time you stand face to face with Christ, the tables will be turned. It will be He who says, “I do not know you, depart from me you worker of iniquity.”
Repent. Humble yourself and admit that you might not know all that you think you know. Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. He will come to those who are spiritually impoverished, to those who are broken hearted and mourn.
Jesus is not a fact. He is a person. Eternal life is not knowing about Jesus, it is knowing Jesus. Your entrance into heaven will not be based on your works or your doctrine, but on whether Jesus knows you. This is a relationship, not a quiz.”
This statement is very, very Sonshippy, and characteristic of the mentality among Sonship’s Koolaid drinking faithful. First, we see the misrepresentation of the Pharisees as a device for promoting their false doctrine. Supposedly, the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and had a laser focus on correct doctrine, but missed the whole point of salvation which has nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with knowing Christ as a “person.” Only problem is—that’s not true.
Anodos’ contention that the Pharisees had Jesus crucified over correct doctrine is a classic GS proposition, but doesn’t square with what Scripture states. Just imagine how intimidating this is to those who are under it; your best intentions in regard to following the truth could result in you being a Pharisee without realizing it. Moreover, since a relationship with Christ has nothing to do with the truth (“Jesus is not a fact. He is a person”), you wouldn’t dare go to the Scriptures and make your own assessment because that is truth-based / doctrine oriented. Therefore, you must be able ascertain what the Scriptures are teaching you about Jesus’ personhood for relationship purposes, and not knowledge. Since you wouldn’t normally try that at home—yep, you guessed it—better depend on those who are really, really good with the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic. Do you think that I am insinuating that GS doctrine (which is based on Jesus as a “person [a no-brainer]—not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” [Paul Tripp]) relegates GS followers to a Pope-like dependence on their leaders for understanding the Scriptures? Absolutely.
The fact is: the Pharisees were the sultans of false doctrine and lawlessness. All of the trials leading up to Jesus’ execution were completely unlawful. Jesus made it clear that they changed the law and replaced it with their traditions. In fact, Jesus accused them of nullifying the law and making it “void” (Matthew 15:16). Since law (Scripture: see Matthew 5:18) determines doctrine, the Pharisees didn’t have correct doctrine. Obviously.
Hence, the idea heard constantly among the GS crowd: those who form their beliefs from biblical facts make the same mistake the Pharisees supposedly made. I have heard this from GS leaders firsthand. Only the gospel, as seen in the Scriptures, is “Spirit”; “facts” are the “letter” of the law –not the Spirit. Therefore, supposedly, the “letter kills, but the Spirit gives life,” and they cite 2Corinthians 3:6 accordingly. Can I emphasize enough how dangerous this teaching is?
Secondly, this is postmodern thought. The following are statements by John MacArthur Jr. in “Truth War” concerning the Emergent Church and Postmodern thought. See if you can detect the parallels between GS hermeneutics / Anodos’ comments, and what MacArthur writes as follows:
“Uncertainty is the new truth. Doubt and skepticism have been canonized as a form of humility” (page 16).
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, emphasis added).
“Propositions force us to face facts and either affirm or deny them, and that kind of clarity simply does not play well in a postmodern culture” (Page 16).
Quoting John Armstrong, a proponent of the Emerging Church: “Theology must be a humble human attempt to ‘hear him’ – never about rational [again, my emphasis] approaches to text” (page 21).
Thirdly, Anodos displays a common propensity among GS advocates to proclaim dissenters as unregenerate. Notice that Anodos, like most GS advocates, base this on my exegetical view of Scripture. Anodos might note in the verse that he uses to condemn me that the word for “iniquity” is “anomia” which means “anti-law” (negative article “a” and “nomia” [law]). That sounds more like the GS crowd than me.
Lastly, Anodos’ comment is indicative of GS/Sonship’s inadequacy in presenting the gospel. “Come to Jesus and ask Him to reveal Himself to you,” is not how one gets saved. I was involved in a situation where I was asked to counsel an individual who was living in unspeakable sin. Later, we became disassociated with each other when he started counseling with a GS / Sonship “elder.” Some time later, I was informed that the counselee spent hours on his knees begging God to save him, and to no avail. Why? Apparently, the counselee had been taught by the GS counselor that before he could be saved, God had to show him his salvation as a “treasure chest of joy.”
Anodos, that’s why you and your GS cohorts are wicked false teachers. And frankly, I don’t care if your names are Anodos, John Piper, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Paul Tripp, Francis Chan, etc, etc, etc. I don’t care how well any of you speak, how well you dress, how many followers you have, or even how good you smell. Your vile doctrine is ruining people’s lives and I will contend against it until God gives me my last breath.
paul
Horton’s Systematic Theology Completes The Fix
Revised:
The Fix is now in. What started out as Sonship Theology about thirty years ago—now has its own theology, hermeneutic, practical application, defined experience, ecumenical (inclusiveness) movement, history, college, counseling organization—and now, its own systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification, as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity. It won’t be long; those who we minister to will have to be deprogrammed before we can help them, starting with convincing them that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from God as our authority for ministry. Not understanding GS beforehand will make any attempt to help people with the word of God—dead on arrival.
GS Theology
The movement started with a very powerful concept in the minds of its perpetrators. Supposedly, we grow spiritually by revisiting the gospel that saved us every day. Proponents were convinced (and still are) that this thesis stands alone as truth; therefore, all other propositions must bow to it. Though Covenant Theology will work with GS, New Covenant Theology was developed to bolster the Sonship thesis. NCT was developed where Sonship was also born: Westminster Seminary.
The GS Hermeneutic
A literal interpretation of Scripture will continually contradict GS. So, the proponents have changed how we read / interpret the Bible accordingly. The GS hermeneutic is an interpretive prism that will always yield results that make GS plausible. Unlike the rest of the elements (which are very contemporary), the hermeneutic (known as Biblical Theology or Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics) was borrowed from times past. It originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writings of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction.
Practical Application
The GS narrow approach to sanctification must be embellished and applicable to life in some way in order to be sold. This is Heart Theology, and was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary. In 1996, two former students of Powlison articulated Heart Theology in a book entitled, “How People Change.”
Defined Experience
John Piper seeks to articulate how Sonship is experienced via Christian Hedonism. Because GS makes our works and the work of the Spirit an either / or issue, someone needed to develop a thesis that explained how the difference can be ascertained. John Piper answered the call with the development of Christian Hedonism.
Ecumenical Bent
GS now encompasses any group that agrees with its primary view of plenary monergism and the synthesis of justification and sanctification. All other disciplines are seen as secondary and irrelevant to fellowship and joint ventures. The Gospel Coalition (holding national conferences on odd years, 2011, etc.), and T4G (Together For The Gospel, holding national conferences on even years) work together to promote GS/S while promoting inclusiveness among denominations and religions.
College
The Antioch School of leadership training has GS as its foundation and basis for training. It is located in Ames, Iowa.
History
GS proponents claim a historical precedent dating back to Creation. Of course, this is laughable. Sonship, the Antioch school, TGC, T4G, NCT, CH, and HT have no historical precedent prior to 1970. Most of the notable proponents of GS are associated in some way with those who created Sonship Theology: Edmund Clowney, and primarily, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Tim Keller and David Powlison were followers of Miller. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane are followers of David Powlison. Jerry Bridges attributes his view of the gospel to Miller as well.
Counseling Organization
The upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition, which seeks to network other counseling organizations as well, is intimately associated with T4G and The Gospel Coalition. The who’s who of Gospel Sanctification sit on its governing board including David Powlison and Paul David Tripp.
The Complete Fix
With Michael Horton’s recent publication of “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way” (2011), the total fix is in place. The GS machine will now begin to move forward—rewriting and re-forming orthodox Christianity. I confidently predict that Horton’s book will be widely used in seminaries nationwide. Seminary students will be pumped into the local churches with a skewered view of truth—but using all of the same terminology that was formally orthodox.
What Can Be Done?
This doctrine thrives on the fact that Christians are theologically dumbed-down. If most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification (and they don’t), they are helpless against this false doctrine. If most Christians don’t realize the importance of understanding hermeneutics (and they don’t), they are even more helpless. Local churches need to start in-doctrine-ating their people.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 11: DA Carson Exposed in the Desert
I get my share of grief for identifying DA Carson as a primary proponent of the GS / Sonship doctrine. One reader recently challenged me by sending a Carson quote that was, of course, seemingly orthodox. So, I decided to do a GS / Sonship acid test, which seeks to determine if someone holds to the GS / Sonship view of Galatians 2 and 3. To test, you merely do a google search like this one: “DA Carson Galatians.” What came up was an annual convention sponsored by The Gospel Coalition at Desert Springs Church in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The name of the event is “Clarus [year].” The annual event usually features two prominent teachers from the Sonship tribe. This particular seminar was “Clarus 2008,” and featured Carson teaming up with none other than Michael Horton.
The duo’s theme at this seminar was “Galatians and the Problem of Self Justification.” I listened to Carson’s message on Galatians 2:11-21 entitled “An Apostolic Disputation—and Justification.” Throughout all the tape that I listened to, the fawning enamoration from the members at Desert Springs, an obvious bastion of Sonship / GS doctrine, was obnoxiously evident as the listeners chuckled, laughed, and sighed at every clever phrase and profound utterance that came from Carson’s mouth. If your listening to that tape (mp3), you have to know these people are going to believe everything coming out of Carson’s mouth which is indicative of the Gospel Coalition’s cult of personality.
Aside from that, the message was a pure, unadulterated Sonship take on Galatians. Throughout the message, Carson speaks as if the daily details of Christian living have nothing to do with something called sanctification, but often used the word justification in that context, as the text does, but speaking with a flavor of ideas that we would normally associate with sanctification. Carson, and other Sonship proponents get away with this because most Christians don’t know the theological difference between justification and sanctification, which are in-fact biblical words / terms. Carson, in the same message, belittled the biblical idea of striving to please God as “having a good day,” and gives examples of how Christians supposedly pray about that, and thereby exposing their motives in trying to please God in their own efforts (not his words, but the same idea), which he likens to “spitting on the cross.” A usual mode of operation for GS teachers is to illustrate misguided attempts by Christians to please God (trying to do the right thing the wrong way) as proof that any striving on our part circumvents grace. It’s rarely about wrong application verses right application, but always a works / grace issue. This message was certainly no exception.
However, I have been a Christian for twenty-eight years and have never witnessed any of their extreme examples. Truly, GS propagators are the sultans of red herrings and straw men. But all in all, it can’t be denied that Carson’s message was primarily focused on Christian living in relationship to the law, and that using what text? Galatians 2:11-21. But, primarily, this text is about the law’s relationship to salvation, NOT Christian living. A much better text would have been Ephesians 4:17-32. If you examine all their (the GS brain trust) teachings carefully, the idea of Christian living and salvation (declared / imputed righteousness as a onetime act of God) are almost always synthesized. It is very subtle, but for instance, in Paul Tripp’s chapel message at Southeastern Baptist Seminary entitled “Playing With the Box” (Spring 2007), his introduction clearly concerns the gospel, but the body of the message clearly concerns sanctification in context of the gospel theme. Therefore, again, if one pays attention, their teachings on Christian living are almost always set in a gospel context that distorts the law’s role in sanctification / regeneration. It cannot be denied that they make no distinction between salvation and life application of God’s word.
Carson also taught in the same message that whenever Paul said “law” in Galatians, that Paul was referring to the “law covenant.” Um, this is a smoking gun. Most GS advocates are New Covenant theologians. NCT holds to the idea that the New Covenant abrogated the Old Covenant, which was the law covenant. Traditionally, orthodox evangelicals believe that even though the New Covenant is “better,” elements of the old are still intact, especially the law. In other words, the covenants build on each other. In Ephesians 2:12, the apostle Paul makes being alienated from Christ synonymous with being “strangers to the covenants.” Notice “covenants” is in the plural, not singular, then Paul later makes an Old Covenant application to life in Ephesians 6:1-3. Please note the following reference concerning proponents of NCT and the familiar suspects of GS:
“The last twenty-five years have seen a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, many within this camp have sought to develop a more clarified system of the covenants that relate back to older thought. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Peter Ditzel, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker and Steve Lehrer. The writings of Douglas Moo, Tom Schreiner, and D.A. Carson on the relation of the Christian to the law reveal their sympathies with NCT. However they have not wanted themselves to be so labeled. John Piper also has many points of contact with this movement, but an article at Desiring God carefully distinguishes his position from the Covenant, New Covenant and Dispensational theological systems” (Theopedia,com).
That’s another GS mode of operation, avoiding labels to prevent detection, but these men are clearly in the NCT camp which is a tenet of GS doctrine. This is why I seriously doubt Michael Horton is a Covenant theologian regardless of what he or anyone else claims. His joined at the hip verbiage with Carson at the Q and A sessions of Clarus 08 also makes that difficult to believe as well. Furthermore, in the same message, Carson insinuated that Christians are not obligated to the law (a proper view of that text in Galatians should add “not for justification” after each consideration), but should obey the law as a way of being a Gentile for the sake of the Gentiles in the same way that Paul “became a Jew for the sake of the Jews.” But moreover, he added the warning that we should not do it in a way that gives people the idea that we can actually keep the law as Christians because, as he said earlier in the message: “….we just aren’t [we (Christians) aren’t (present tense)] good enough….consistent enough….whole enough.” Of course, the apostle Paul saw a difference between Christian liberty and upholding the law; Carson makes no such distinction in the same message.
In the Q and A sessions, Horton and Carson agree on the GS dichotomy of law and gospel, without including any clarification in regard to how that would relate to sanctification verses justification. This kind of ambiguity saturated the Q an A’s and the aforementioned message I listened to. Horton and Carson also paid homage to Tim Keller and Edmund Clowney—further demonstrating their kinship with Sonship / GS doctrine.
The classic GS / Sonship take on Galatians 1-5 as being about sanctification is also noted by Eastwood Presbyterian Church in their formal contention ( http://goo.gl/rODyO ) against Sonship theology: “Further, we think Sonship makes a serious exegetical error in its dealings with the book of Galatians: Sonship wrongly identifies the Galatian problem as one dealing with sanctification instead of justification.” In his message, Carson relates Galatians to how we live as Christians, but cleverly calls it justification (to match Paul’s terminology) as if works can only be classified in the justification category. However, his subject matter is clearly that of which would be placed in the regeneration / sanctification category.
Carson’s close association with Horton should be noted as well because Horton is more forthright in how he propagates their Quietist doctrine: http://goo.gl/y03xn
Paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment