Open Discussion: The Horton Statement That Nobody Wants To Talk About
Christless Christianity, page 62:
“Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. 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.”
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 8: The Brinsmead / Zens Affair Gives Birth To New Calvinism
As I continue to absorb an astounding document written by Jon Zens, “Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984),” the Zens/Brinsmead connection and its contribution to the birth of New Calvinism becomes evident. Zens’ essay covers the early years of the movement until the time when it took on a life of its own—1984.
Zens became a Calvinist in 1967 and joined Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Prospectville, PA in 1972. During this time, according to him, he began his quest into the “law/gospel issue.” He became a teacher there and started preparing Sunday school lessons that refuted Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Apparently, these theologies contradicted where he wanted to go with the law/gospel issue. At least ten students from Westminster Seminary were in his class. In the same timeframe, he became a student at Westminster and was receiving Present Truth (hereafter PT), the theological journal of the Australian Forum. It seems that the journal had a wide readership there because it was “the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at the time.” Hence, the father of New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and the Australian Forum were impregnating Westminster with elements of New Calvinism from the very beginning. The infusion of other Reformed Baptist such as John Piper could have happened in a number of different ways as Zens was a Reformed Baptist and PT had a wide readership among Reformed Baptist as well.
Furthermore, Zens moved to Nashville in 1975 and was writing articles for the Baptist Reformed Review (hereafter BRR) which was started by Norbert Ward in 1972. It is clear that Zens turned the magazine into a vessel for promoting a “Christ-centered approach to ethics.” In reading this historical account by Zens, it makes one’s head spin as it seems he was on a mission with a vengeance while living out of a suitcase—to create and spread some sort of new twist on “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” Nevertheless, the vessels at his disposal were very influential; and therefore, it is surprising that it has taken thirty-six years for this movement to arrive at its present zenith. BRR later became the official theological journal for the Continental Baptist who split from Reformed Baptist over NCT.
Meanwhile, the desire to synthesize justification and sanctification is nothing new. JC Ryle said: “ But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ—that is, justification and sanctification.” Overemphasizing Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit in order to do so is not that difficult. In fact, that’s exactly the error Ryle was contending with in his time. But in regard to eschatology, God’s emphasis on last things seems to bring up all kinds of pesky issues that eclipse the centrality of His Son, like Israel etc. What to do? Answer: invoke good ole’ fashioned Hagelian Historicism (pp. 67, 68, Tim Black: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos). It is clear that the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) was a think tank seeking to codify sanctification by justification alone into a unified theological system (with the primary motive of reforming Adventism). In doing this, law/gospel; obedience, and eschatology would have been key considerations. The Zens/Af connection filled the order.
Zens met with Brinsmead at length in 1979 and pointed out a contradiction in the AF’s view of law verses the centrality of Christ in evangelism. Zens said that the result was “brilliant” essays appearing in Verdict (formally PT). Zens wrote at least one article for the AF (when it was still PT) that apes the NC motif that any other consideration of Scripture apart from a redemptive-historical view is existentialism. This is also a major theme in Michael Horton’s writings. In 1981 and 1982, Zens spoke at “several” Verdict (AF seminars) seminars on the west coast, and admits that he changed the name of BRR to “Searching Together” in order to accommodate Adventist readers. Toward the end of the essay, Zens quotes Brinsmead from Judged by the Gospel in which Brinsmead states the AF’s affirmation that all of history must be seen through the gospel, a NCT staple.
It is clear that remnants of sanctification by justification alone were loosely about along with attempts to convert eschatology into a plenary gospel historicism, but there is little doubt that Zens and the AF were the ones who did the heavy lifting in regard to forming these ideas into a systematic theology. Without that systematic theology, the New Calvinism movement is not what it is today, if anything at all. In fact, Zens’ cohorts among Reformed Baptist (including John Reisinger, a longtime friend of Zens) sought to form their own association because they feared the “movement” would end up being a “flash in the pan.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 7: The Birth of New Covenant Theology
“Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.”
As things become clearer, it seems the crux of New Calvinism is sanctification by objective justification. What’s that? Simply stated: all things relevant focus on Christ and His works outside of us (what they call the gospel). Any consideration of ourselves (subjective) in the mix, and anything else other than Christ and His works amounts to Existentialism. All reality must be interpreted through the gospel. In fact, truth can be truth until it is taught without being seen through the interpretive lens of Christ—then it becomes error. So, we aren’t really born again—that’s a subjective interpretation and insinuates that we can have a part in the sanctification process. The new birth must be seen “in its gospel context.” Hence, the Australian Forum said the following about the new birth, and even election: “Those who preach ‘Ye must be born again’ as the gospel are preaching a false gospel.” And, “A doctrine of election which takes as its starting point a philosophical concept instead of the gospel makes the Father the center and not Christ. A doctrine of election apart from Christ is inimical to sanctification and not its powerful source” (Present Truth Magazine Archives Vol. 24 #2).
This interpretive prism can be seen clearly in what is taught by contemporary New Calvinist. A predominant mantra among them is the idea that we are unable to approach the Scriptures without personal presuppositions (subjective). Therefore, ideas must not be drawn from the text (exegesis) because that’s subjective—the text must be interpreted through the gospel (eisegesis). This is why contemporary New Calvinist, as with the Australian Form, deny the new birth from our perspective: “But to whom are we introducing people, to Christ or to ourselves? Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own ‘Spirit-filled’ life?” (Michael Horton, In The Face Of God).
Compare Horton’s quote with one of the Australian Three, G. Paxton:
“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” (Present Truth Archives Vol. 37 #4)
The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree, but let me now use this quote by Chad Bresson to further this point and lead us into our subject:
“New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality” (Vossed World, “What is New Covenant Theology?”).
Jon Zens, the father of New Covenant Theology, was totally onboard with sanctification by objective justification. He wrote an article for the Australian Forum entitled “Why Existential Theology Is Bankrupt” (Id Vol. 37 #4). Though sanctification by objective justification was probably not original with the Australian Forum (but the jury is still out on that), they definitely called for a systematic theology that would reconcile that doctrine to Scripture in all areas, and they specifically called for a “framework” in the areas of history, covenants, and eschatology (Ibid Volume XLVI). G. Goldsworthy, one of the AF3, would have been priceless in regard to a historical and eschatological framework, but it is my contention that Jon Zens answered the call for a covenantal framework.
Dennis M. Swanson of Master’s Seminary stated in his “Introduction to New Covenant Theology” that though Zens is not a focal person in the movement at this time—“he really started the movement” (p.152). Swanson further states that he believes Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981 (p.153).
In an unusual document by Zens entitled Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984), by Jon Zens, 1984”—Zens writes the following:
“I started receiving Present Truth (now Verdict) at Westminster Seminary (1972). I didn’t read it much, however, until 1975. The emphasis on justification was helpful to me at this time [that would be sanctification by objective justification alone].
In August, 1979 — through a series of fluke circumstances — I heard about some unadvertised meetings at a Ramada Inn in Nashville. For three days the editor of Verdict, Robert D. Brinsmead [the editor of Present Truth and the primary leader of the Australian Forum, and one of the AF3], was addressing about 150 Adventist-oriented people. I came Friday night and spoke with RDB and Jack Zwemer in their motel room for about two hours. We also talked for another two hours on Sunday night.
I was impressed by Brinsmead’s teachable, open spirit. He obviously did not feel threatened by my pointed and probing questions. One area that I asked him about was the idea that the law had to do a “work” before the gospel could come to folks. His magazine had been permeated with this concept. I suggested that if all things are to be approached through Christ, why do we put the law ahead of Him in evangelism? Where in Acts were the Ten Commandments preached before the gospel? He said he thought I had some good points and that he would reflect upon them. On Sunday night I gave him Richard Gaffin’s The Centrality of the Resurrection, Meredith Kline’s The Structure of Biblical Authority, and all of the back issues of BRR.
In January, 1980, Brinsmead called from California, just before he was to leave for Australia. He said that he had read the back issues, that he thought we [note: “WE”—] were on to something important [emphasis mine], and that he would study these matters closely in Australia. In 1981 some brilliant essays appeared in Verdict. “Sabbatarianism Re-examined,” “Jesus and the Law,” And “The Heart of N.T. Ethics” presented a Christ-centered approach to ethics. It was certainly heartening to see this shift by the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at that time (sadly, since mid-1984 RDB went markedly downhill [right, not only was he a Seventh-Day Adventist, but he is now openly apostate by all standards]).”
Zens elaborated on his interaction with Brinsmead and discussed several Australian Forum articles published in Present Truth (later, Verdict), in This is My Beloved Son, Hear Him (Searching Together. Summer-Winter 1997, Vol. 25:1,2,3. Pages 67-71) Zens attached the following footnote to the article: “I met Mr. Brinsmead in August 1979, asked him to consider the centrality of Christ in Christian obedience, and gave him some materials to read. In January 1980, Brinsmead called me and indicated that these redemptive-historical points were worthy of consideration and further study.”
Here, we perceive the very cradle of New Covenant Theology. While working through the issues himself, Zens confronted Brinsmead in regard to the AF’s view on the law’s relationship to justification—which Zens had been “helped” by (their view on justification) while at Westminster. Brinsmead then called Zens in 1980 to say, “We [are] onto something important.” Then Brinsmead, according to Zens, published a string of “brilliant” articles as a result in 1981—the same year Swanson says Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology.” Apparently, this will be the legacy of New Covenant Theology—it was concocted by a Seventh-Day Adventist turned Reformed before he became apostate.
Zens was a Reformed Baptist pastor at the time, so it is easy to see how the doctrine has spread in that camp. Present Truth also had a significant readership in Reformed Baptist circles. Zens’ leanings toward antinomian type doctrines had already caused trouble among Reformed Baptist which resulted in William J Chantry writing the book, God’s Righteous Kingdom. As far as the Johnny-come-lately names of NCT, one website is quoted as saying the following: “Since 1980 there has been a great resurgence of Reformed theology in Baptist circles. As a result, some have sought to develop a new, non-covenantal approach to theology distinct from the Second London Confession position. Leaders of this movement include such theologians as John Reisinger, Jon Zens, Fred Zaspel, Tom Wells, Gary Long, Geoff Volker, and Michael W. Adams.”
According to Richard C Barcellos in Defense Of The Decalogue, the doctrine was still in transition as late as 2001 when he wrote his book. Its proponents will have to let us know when they get it nailed down, or perhaps they can solicit some help from Robert Brinsmead. Robert–phone home.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments