A Passing Thought: How John MacArthur Helps Me Get Closer To Christ
“Notable evangelicals continue to build years of trust among the laity, seemingly, if you didn’t know better, for the purpose of a grand disillusionment. However, with each one that contradicts their own supposed convictions they sold you in book form, the pain gives way to the sweetness of knowing that Christ will never let us down in that way.”
Excerpt: http://wp.me/pmd7S-x1
John MacArthur’s Piper / Warren Hypocrisy
John MacArthur’s love affair with New Calvinism and its Cult of Personality is apparent. What is annoying is his double standard concerning those he criticizes and New Calvinist cult figures, particularly John Piper. The most blatant example of this is Mac’s criticism of Rick Warren for excluding repentance from his gospel presentations while at the same time, the absence of repentance in the gospel is a hallmark of New Calvinism (poke Michael Horton’s teachings just about anywhere to try to find repentance). I have been told by a New Calvinist to my face that my inclusion of Acts 17:30 in a gospel presentation was Phariseeism. In fact, I have searched in vain for a message of repentance in any of John Piper’s gospel presentations. In his message, “God Strengthens Us by the Gospel” he offers the following as his specific definition of the gospel:
“What’s the gospel? I’ll put it in a sentence. The Gospel is the news that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died for our sins and rose again, eternally triumphant over all his enemies, so that there is now no condemnation for those who believe, but only everlasting joy. That’s the gospel.”
Seems pretty obvious here. He begins with, “What is the gospel ?” And ends with, “That’s the gospel.” My apologies ahead of time to New Calvinist Koolaid drinkers (like Frank Turk) for drawing any conclusions from this statement (also compare it specifically with some of Mac’s complaints about Warren’s presentation).
The following is the video that documents Mac’s diatribe against Warren while giving John Piper a pass.
Sonship Theology From Ground Level: Part 1
Though Sonship theology is rarely, if ever spoken of among New Calvinist, its connections and influence are clearly undisputable. These are comments from a reader who is presently involved in a Sonship discipleship course. I find this reader’s insights intriguing when compared to the adamant denials that New Calvinist have an unorthodox view of law/gospel. More comments from this reader will be posted in the near future. Also, note the reader’s ability to discern the techniques used to assimilate this false doctrine into the minds of the students taking this course:
“May I put my two cents in here to share what I’ve learned from the Sonship course of their position regarding law? I’m offering this as evidence that some people do believe Christ’s active obedience obviates our obedience. From what I understand, this course is very popular and I happen to know a church full of people holding fast to this Sonship doctrine. Just on the face of it, the Sonship course has no chapter on obedience at all. There is a chapter, however on “Passive Righteousness” and here’s what they have to say about the law:
What they teach in Sonship is that any good works/righteousness we (as believers, mind you — not unregenerate — they say this is a course for believers!) display is as filthy rags, BUT, they remind us, Christ died for sinners and accepts us just the way we are. This is how they start the course to show us we’re adopted sons (hence, “Sonship”). With that premise in mind, I still haven’t figured out what they mean by God’s grace/the Spirit “moves you out”. What – into more sin so that we can claim Christ’s atonement?
At the beginning of chapter 4 in this course, this is what they say about the law: “We abuse law by turning it into our gospel, by making law our good news instead of what Christ has done for us. In doing so, we lose both the law and the gospel. At the heart of this abuse is a legalistic heart that says, ‘Give me a law so that I can keep it, and feel righteous about it.’” Remember, they say we do this as believers. This chapter was to teach us how we are “prone . . . to live under law (in subtle as well as obvious ways), and how that overflows in an unloving approach toward others.” Later in chapter 4, we’re given a checklist to see where we “stand.” The first item in the checklist is “I live as though my actions will make God . . . approve me.” If you selected that as one of your characteristics, they claim you are “living by unbelief and under the law.” Another one from the “living by unbelief and under the law” list is: “I base my worth on the ‘success’ of my efforts.” Can you see they are negating the law in the believer’s life? There can be no effort to please God in the life of a believer? There can be no faith that bears fruit?
The next question is: whose law do they claim we are prone to live under – our own or God’s? The homework questions are focused around man-made laws – rules we set up for ourselves and expect others to follow. However, through the course of this chapter, they make no distinction between man-made laws and God’s law. No definitions. Near the end of the chapter, they throw the baby (God’s law) out with the bathwater (man’s law) by stating: “In Christ, I am free from the law’s condemnation. In Christ, my sins are paid for, and I have Jesus’ perfect obedience. Law does not determine my acceptance with God. Now I know law cannot sanctify me.” And also: “He has not only attained our perfection but atoned for our imperfection. There is nothing more to struggle about, for He has done all for us and God asks nothing now but our repentance and faith. ALL THE FITNESS HE REQUIRETH IS TO FEEL YOUR NEED OF HIM.” (Emphasis mine.) (The last was quoted in the Sonship course from Stanley Voke, Personal Revival, 1964.) (Note that in the first quote, the context of their discussion of the law is as it pertains to sanctification.) There. Full circle. Christ died for sinners. So, in holding to this truth as their requirement (that is, as believers, they need to be sinners (total depravity of the saints) so that He will feel their need of Him), they will crucify Him over and over again by preaching the gospel to themselves. Thus, exposing Him repeatedly to public disgrace (Heb. 6:4-6) and insulting the Spirit of grace (Heb. 10:26-29).”
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 11: Walter Chantry’s Suffering
One day I hope to meet him. Soon, it would be like those meetings we used to see on Oprah where people who have suffered the same type of traumas meet to share their experiences. In fact, there are clubs all over the country where people meet to do just that. It’s like they have always known each other, and the very first meetings are filled with tears and hugging. Whether it’s the My Poodle Was Slain by a Pitbull in Front of My Eyes Club or some other club of trauma, the reunions seem to be a healing balm of some sort.
Chantry and I could start our own club for those who are traumatized by debating proponents of New Covenant Theology. Chantry tried to destroy the evil child soon after it was delivered and wasn’t yet named ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Ld ). Apparently, survivors of Chantry’s onslaught split from Reformed Baptist into a meager fellowship called Continental Baptist. New Covenant Theology (NCT) is based on the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology and is now a gargantuan movement known as New Calvinism. Chantry’s bantering back and forth with one of two patriarchs of NCT, Jon Zens, is well documented and exhausting. One example can be seen here: http://solochristo.com/theology/nct/zens-chantry.htm .
Method 1: Annoying, and repetitious oversimplified denial.
Chantry, knowing that NCT hacks like to confuse and wear down their opponents with an endless flogging of residual issues, rightly focused on the fact that it all boils down to Antinomianism. The very annoying way in which Zens debates can be seen clearly in present-day COG proponents; for example, “Show me one reference where I have ever written that I am an Antinomian you slanderer!” Chantry’s reply usually followed along these lines: “For substantiation of what I have to say, I could quote almost the entirety of the articles that you [Zens] have printed in ‘Baptist Reformation Review.'” Further, he [Chantry] viewed my [Zens] pleas for documentation as “quibbling about words, a mere strife about terminology that has no point to it.”
Method 2: Rewrite traditional meaning.
COG proponents are very sensitive to the Antinomian charge, so they continually attempt to rewrite the English language and church history to avoid the accusation. Recent articles by Tullian Tchividjian and Elyse Fitzpatrick deny that there is any such thing as Antinomianism. They also try to replace the word “antinomianism” with what they call “neonomianism (“new legalism” as opposed to “anti-law”). Likewise, “obedience” (we obey) is replaced with “new obedience” (Jesus obeyed in our place as part of the atonement, and apparently still obeys for us via the imputed active obedience of Christ). Sanctification is now “progressive sanctification” which is nothing more than the unfolding of our justification via John Piper’s “beholding as a way of becoming.” Of course, he includes “….a way….” so if he’s confronted he can say that he’s talking about contemplative spirituality being just one of many avenues while assuring us that he believes in “obedience.” But of course, he’s really talking about “New Obedience.”
Method 3: Fake contentions against supposedly contrary beliefs.
COG proponents contend against many other belief systems as a way to appear like standguards for orthodox truth. Often, the “contrary” beliefs are very similar to their own. An assistant to DA Carson recently wrote a book on Keswick theology, which has many similarities to COG. Carson also disses Keswick theology on a routine bases, but according to one article:
“Beginning in the 1920s, the Keswick Convention’s view of sanctification began to shift from the view promoted by the leaders of the early convention. William Graham Scroggie (1877–1958) led that transformation to a view of sanctification closer to the Reformed view. Today its speakers include people like D. A. Carson and Sinclair Ferguson, whose views on the Christian life differ significantly from the Keswick Convention’s first generation.” http://ccclh.org/blog/?p=1234
….But apparently, not the second generation of Keswick theology. One of their (COG proponents) favorite targets is postmodernism or the Emergent Church who they share like philosophies with. I go into detail on this subject here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Lk
Method 4: Quote other leaders who have written against COG-like doctrines.
JC Ryle wrote extensively on doctrines that distorted biblical sanctification, and many of them were very similar to New Calvinism and NCT. In fact, such doctrines that were running about in his day inspired his famous “Scriptural Holiness” which is considered to be one of the best works on Christian living ever written. The introduction outlines seven elements of Quietist type doctrines that fit Gospel Sanctification to a T. Therefore, COG proponents like Kevin Deyoung now quote Ryle extensively. A proponent of NCT has recently sent me emails that contain excerpts from Scriptural Holiness that seem to indicate Ryle supported a synthesis of justification and sanctification, and asked me to post them. Only problem is, I am very familiar with Ryles writings and find the suggestion preposterous. Knowing what I know about Ryle’s theological positions, I assume the quotes pertain to a contention against those who believe that sanctification is a much lesser concern than justification. This doesn’t mean Ryle believed they are exactly the same in essence as the proponent implied.
Mix those four methods with an attitude that is driven by a belief that God is using them to orchestrate a “second reformation” (I’m not joking), and the same kind of confidence the apostle Paul mentioned about the false teachers he contended with, and what you have is a serious Excedrin headache. With that said, one remembers what Jay Adams said about Quietist type doctrines: they will “ruin people’s lives.” He also said Gospel Sanctification is “dangerous and must be stopped.” No doubt—so the fight continues.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment