New Calvinism’s Gospel Sanctification Hasn’t Fooled Everybody
The following letter received by PPT is indicative of why we’re here. Not everybody is buying into this doctrine, but when it comes to getting answers—good luck. Also noted in the reader’s letter is the fact that many know something’s not right about the doctrine, but, “Where else is there to go?” This is the result of two factors: New Calvinist churches deliberately instill that mentality into their people because the movement is cultish, and in fact, this movement has all but totally infested Christianity. As the reader indicates: “And she is right…there is no church here in (a large US city) that does not have the infiltration of these doctrines.” The following letter is published with permission. The reader begins with a quote pulled from a PPT post:
“In fact, I would probably be conceding myself, thinking, ‘Everyone else, and now MacArthur? It must be me—I’m missing something on this,’ if not for a few souls like Walter Chantry and Dr. Jay Adams.”
Your comment above was also my thoughts for along time. I have been researching, and sending emails to various Pastors (omitted), wanting to know: “Exactly what is the New Calvinism?” I knew it had ties to “Sonship Theology” and NPP and Vision Forum, but I could not pull it all together and find the common denominator, that is until I found your blog by typing in “Jerry Bridges and Sonship Theology” into Google.
I started to think that I was what I have been accused of being, “unloving” “attacking my own”, “having evil intent”, etc., etc. I have so much to say and share with you in the bittersweet understandings of the knowledge of just what those teachings are; how they lead to a life devoid of joy and assurance in our hope and faith in Jesus Christ [exactly what New Calvinism promises to the contrary: go figure]; and the sadness of knowing my friends who have denounced fellowship with me are still under the influence to the doctrines mentioned. However, as one of those friends mentioned to me when I was warning her of those doctrines in the church she still attends (it is under the leadership umbrella of SGM), “Where else is there to go?” And she is right…there is no church here in (a large US city) that does not have the infiltration of these doctrines.
It is hard to point out the problems, without also providing the solutions.
I know now that at least I am not alone in thinking as I have been. Thank you, so very much for the time and effort you put into your blog!! I also thank your wife, who obviously is your best encourager! What a blessing!
Thank You!
Blessings,
(Omitted)
~Be clothed in the Lord, and wear Him well!
Francis Chan Not Sure That Hell Is Eternal Suffering
The Bible’s clear message of eternal torment for those who reject Christ poses a problem for New Calvinism’s doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. The most troubling aspect of GS is how John Piper’s contribution to the doctrine (Christian Hedonism) effects the all important presentation of the gospel. The need of repentance is not included for fear that the hearer would think that “they could do something to be saved.” Piper believes that gospel presentations must only include a description of the gospel as a treasure to be desired, and as such, saving faith will always be earmarked by joy. Likewise, Michael Horton describes any participation by us in the salvation process as “just more bad news” instead of good news. Hence, a call to repentance or a call to escape hell may cause a hearer to accept the gospel with wrong motives, making it unclear as to whether God was really at work in the decision.
So, the dilemma: should we include things that the Bible talks about in gospel presentations or not? And if not, what is the purpose for such information in the Christian life? Frankly, this is the problem with all false doctrines—proponents spend most of their time coming up with new explanations and answering hard questions. Who can deny that New Calvinism is constantly morphing?
But secondly, hell also brings up the whole issue of accepting what God says whether we like it or not. In other words, the whole concept of being obedient to the truth, but not liking it, and even having a distaste for it. However, also knowing that our distaste is due to our lack of understanding from God’s righteous perspective. This is obedience to the truth without the joy which runs afoul of Piper’s Christian Hedonism. According to one of Piper’s favorite illustrations to make this point: If there is no joy in the duty of kissing our wife, the duty is stripped of its moral value. Or, would we bring our wife flowers and tell her that we did it out of mere duty? Therefore, supposedly, we can fool our wife but we can’t fool God—He knows that our duty is without moral value.
Missed in these supposedly profound illustrations is how real life really works. Getting my wife flowers may be an inconvenience because I am under the gun to finish a project, but after I die to self and get her the flowers, I am thrilled because of how happy she is to receive the flowers. My initial denial of self does not strip the deed of its moral value just because the self-denial didn’t initially feel good. And in regard to escaping hell being a motivation for one to give their life to Christ, I like what a pastor friend of mine said about that: “If someone gives their life to Christ to escape hell—that tells me they knew they deserved to go there.”
Moreover, that’s why in their endeavor to make round theological pegs fit in square holes, GS advocates like Francis Chan have to ignore the literal plain sense of Scripture. In an interview with Christianity Today conducted by Mark Galli regarding Francis Chan’s book Erasing Hell (which is supposedly a rebuttal to Rob Bell’s recent book), Chan proclaimed himself “agnostic” in regard to believing that hell is eternal torment. Here is how Galli framed the question:
“In your book you seem agnostic as to whether hell is a conscious eternal torment or annihilation.”
Chan answered this way:
“That was one of the things I was a little surprised by: the language [uh, you mean God’s language?]. I would definitely have to say that if I leaned a certain direction I would lean toward the conscious torment that’s eternal. But I couldn’t say I’m sure of that, because there are some passages that really seem to emphasize a destruction. And then I look in history and find that’s not really a strange view. There are some good, godly men—and maybe even the majority—that seem to take the annihilation view [so what? They are men—not Scripture]. I was surprised because all I was brought up with was conscious torment. And I see that. I see that in Scripture and I would lean more that way but, I’m not ready to say okay I know it’s this one. So say here Here are a couple of views.’ I don’t even remember if I wrote that I lean towards that, but maybe it comes across.”
This brings to mind the rank hypocrisy of New Calvinists that mock Joel Olsteen for this same kind of double-minded pontification while praising Chan for being “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of our age.” Though many verses could be cited, I think this chilling passage from the book of Revelation speaks clearly in regard to the issue:
“’If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.’ This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.”
Sometimes obedience isn’t joyful at all. I have relatives who are dear to me that aren’t saved. The thought of them going out into eternity, and into eternal torment, is beyond horrifying. But yet, I stand on Psalm 145:17 which states that God is righteous in all of His ways. It’s a trust in God, a resolve to stand on Scripture regardless of how it makes me feel. This is an issue of obeying truth rather than strong feelings about truth. Feelings cannot dictate what our doctrine is—this is a recipe for disaster. Furthermore, in the same issue, Chan eludes to other issues about hell that throws a monkey wrench into GS:
“I think there is also some misunderstanding on degrees of punishment. I do see Jesus saying that judgment is going to be worse for some, like the rewards are going to be better for some. But that might be a slight issue.”
Chan sees it in Scripture (so he’s for it), “But that might be a slight issue” (but he might be against it before he is for it). This is a huge problem for GS doctrine because it assumes God recognizes human merit in some way—even among the lost. Galli’s subtitle is also telling: “Why ‘Erasing Hell’ was his most difficult book, how ‘Love Wins’ prompted repentance, and whether ‘Believe in Jesus or you’ll go to hell’ is good news.” So, should hell be in our gospel presentations? And if not, since the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, what is information about hell all about?
New Calvinism is nothing more than a novelties empire full of all kinds of misfits vying for book sales, popularity power, and if CJ Mahaney’s recent fall is any indication—glorious greenbacks. It’s a sideshow of rebels like Bell pushing the envelope too far while others try to clean up the mess in various and sundry ways to keep the empire’s cash cow alive. Piper, who at times creates controversy by who he invites to conferences, excommunicated Bell with a tweet, while Chan told Galli that Bell’s book was bad, but had good things in it, but bad things too, but also led him to repent for certain sins in his (Chan’s) life. And yes, it has error, but the kind of error that makes us think, which is good error—right?
paul
Rick Holland’s ‘Uneclipsing The Son,” Part 2: Mr. Holland’s Motives
“Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged.”
“In speaking of this condition: ‘helpless’; ‘ungodly sinners’; ‘unable to seek God’; ‘dead’; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English Composition. Of course, that is very unlikely.”
I am often asked what I think the motives of New Calvinists are. Is their deception deliberate? Do they really believe this stuff themselves, or are they deceived? Do they just want to sell books? Once again, I was asked this question yesterday by our assistant youth director. I told him that for the most part I don’t know, but apart from the fact that I am indifferent to why people do things (my primary concern is truth verses error), I can understand the curiosity. After all, motive is a standard of proof in a court of law—so I guess it’s important. So, I did offer him some motives that I am sure play a part in the deception, but as I was reading further in Mr. Holland’s opus, the grand motive of New Calvinism hit me between the eyes. Hence, I will add this motive to David and my conversation via this post. First what I shared, then the grand motive.
Infatuation With Novelty
There are many who are simply dissatisfied with the beaten path of our forefathers. They always have to have something new going on. I have seen this clearly in New Calvinist elders that I have known personally.
The Need To Be “Unique”
I will never forget the introduction I heard from an elder who was introducing a Sunday School series on John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism.” His introduction began this way: “This is what makes us unique.” I remember thinking immediately: “Why is it their goal to be unique?” Some leaders are always looking for a niche doctrine that sets them apart from other ministries—this is not only a sign of spiritual immaturity, but very dangerous.
The Need To Be Accepted In Powerful Circles Of Influence
Simply stated: a lust to be among the who’s who of admired theologians. The brave spirit of Athanasius and his rousing epitaph, “Athanasius contra mundum” (Athanasius against the world) is far away from the spirit of this age. It reminds me of some Amway conferences I used to go to with a friend some years ago. To be one of the who’s who of the Amway elite was definitely one of the motivations for excelling in the organization. Likewise, pastors clamor to be invited to speak at T4G, The Gospel Coalition conferences, etc. while others are punished by no longer receiving invitations for not towing the New Calvinist line. Shockingly, Holland openly admits in the Acknowledgments of his opus that the work is the product of “a year” of conversations with “people” who “sharpened and clarified” his thinking in regard to the “exclusivity of Christ’s supremacy in all things” (an Australian Forum buzz-phrase). He further states that the book is the “product of those friendships.” Indeed, I’m sure it is.
The Grand Motive: Spiritual Elitism
This is the mentality that leaders possess a unique ability to understand the deep things of God that the sheep don’t possess. I have experienced this mentality firsthand from notable New Calvinists; today’s Evangelical sheep are “not ready” for the “deep, hard truth” that the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us, and to move on to “anything else” will cause the “loss of both.” They see themselves as being on the cutting edge of the completion of the Reformation that Martin Luther began. The movement is smitten with a visions of grandeur epidemic.
Hence, a deceptive communication technique among New Calvinists that shows motive has clearly emerged. They, I’m sure, condone this by possessing an arrogant mentality that supposedly knows that “hard truth” must be spoon-fed to the sheep until they are “ready” to accept it. The supposed hard truth is the idea that there is no difference between justification and sanctification. And since everything must be interpreted through the gospel, rules of English composition are out the window. Literally, no pun intended. They use Scripture that pertains to the unregenerate to speak of the Christian’s present condition. This shouldn’t surprise us if they think Christians need the gospel everyday, right? Like John Piper, Holland pathetically uses the same technique in his opus on pages 18-20. Before I note what he does there, let me share an excerpt from a note I wrote to a devout follower of John Piper:
“On point 3, I cite his [Piper’s] entire conclusion (and summation) to God Strengthens Us by the Gospel. Ok, who is ‘us’? Christians, right? I mean, unbelievers don’t need ‘strengthening’—they need salvation. So, in the conclusion, if I’m sitting there listening, I’m thinking: ‘Oh, ok, this is a gospel presentation just in case there are unsaved people here’:
‘I [Piper] know that there are people reading this [edited for written form] who are not trusting Jesus Christ, and therefore can only expect condemnation. So I’m just going to plead with you here at the end, lay down that rebellion. Lay it down. And simply embrace the gospel that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Righteous One, died for your sins. He was raised on the third day, triumphant over all his enemies. He reigns until he puts all of his enemies under his feet. Forgiveness of sins and a right standing with God comes freely through him alone, by faith alone.’
BUT then he continues, STARTING IN THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE without any transitional phrase:
‘I plead with you, don’t try to be strong in your own strength; it will not be there when you need it. Only one strength will be there—the strength that God gives according to the gospel. Don’t put it off.’
He is clearly synthesizing those who need strengthening with those who need salvation. Remember, the title of the message is God Strengthens us by the Gospel, and being ‘strengthened in you own strength’ can only be connected with the previous subject if there is no grammatical transition.”
Holland does the exact same thing in the aforementioned pages. On page 18, he uses Romans 5 to say that God “obhor[s], us” [who is “us”?] and, “How can we [who are “we”?] be reconciled to him?” Again, if “we” need the gospel everyday, “we” need to be in the same condition/position as unbelievers, right? He is a Christian author writing to a Christian audience—one can only assume the personal pronouns that include him (we, us, etc.) are speaking of himself and Christians—not himself and unbelievers in a mankind sense. Certainly, sloppy composition cannot be assumed here as Holland is Director DMin studies at Master’s Seminary. Furthermore, in the sentence immediately afterword, he states the following:
“The answer [the answer to what? This MUST refer to the previous sentences that say “we,” and “us” are loathed by God and need to be reconciled to him] to that question [specifically, “How can we be reconciled to Him?”] is the greatness of the gospel , and the gospel is the only way to remove any and every obstacle obscuring the blazing glory of Jesus Christ. It’s our [who does “our” refer to?] hope for living in His fullness [is that not a Christian / sanctification issue? But yet, this line of thought is clearly connected to a description of the unregenerate and connected with “The answer to that question….”].
Page 19 is further devoted to describing the spiritual condition of the unregenerate using personal pronouns that identifies himself as the writer and his presumed Christian audience—with the exception of one sentence that speaks of this condition in the PAST tense. In speaking of this condition: “helpless”; “ungodly sinners”; “unable to seek God”; “dead”; etc., he clearly describes these attributes interchangeably in both the past and present tense, and thereby ignoring the reality of a before and after (salvation) spiritual condition. This must be assumed unless Holland and his editors lack a basic grasp of English composition. On page 20, he continues to describe our spiritual condition in both the present and past tense, but only using descriptions of the unregenerate for both. Again, grammatically, one must assume that he is making no distinction. Moreover, in quoting Romans 5:6 to make his point, Holland actually replaces the word “ungodly” with “us” in brackets. The only way any of this can make sense is through an assumption that there is no distinction between the saved and unregenerate.
Trying to sort this deception out is difficult and annoying, and I do think the technique is used deliberately. If you think about it, if someone doesn’t know the difference between justification and sanctification to begin with—this idea would be assimilated into to their thinking by assumption. And, what of an unbeliever reading this? Would that be the gospel? The gospel is the good news that we are just as spiritually dead now as we have always been? I don’t think so.
paul
A Passing Thought: I Have Tried It
“I remember a time in my Christian life when I wondered what it would have been like to know Jesus face to face like the disciples did. I had a deep desire to know what He was really like “as a person.” This was before I had heard anything about delving “deeper and deeper” into the gospel for purposes of sanctification. I focused heavily on the Gospels and some feel good messages emerged that did bless people’s lives in the feelings department, but all in all—it didn’t work. My closeness to Christ has always been related to my emphasis on spiritual discipline.”
“Living By The Gospel?” http://wp.me/pmd7S-Jh
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
2 comments