The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 7; Southwood’s New Calvinist Elders are Following The Usual M.O.
“Legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them.”
Here we go again. Everything is right on schedule. A Southwood parishioner forwarded the following email to me sent to Southwood congregants by a Southwood elder:
Bill Nash
Elder (Active) at Southwood Presbyterian
Comment re: Others Blogging About Southwood
Gentlemen, I just talked to William Plott who is familiar with the guy writing this blog – he was a trouble maker who was critical of the PCA church’s in Ohio while William lived there. The blogger is from near Dayton, Ohio – probably living in his Mom’s basement. He is not PCA but a reformed Baptist who has nothing good to say about John Piper, Tim Keller, Bryan Chappell, Billy Graham and the Apostle Paul. He has Theonomist leanings. He is not a pastor, but a layman. He has been excommunicated from one Baptist church. The technical term for this guy is ” nut job” and we have already burned too many calories reading his foolish rantings. Tell everyone to stop reading his drival. Move on. Peace, Bill
My first question is the following: are the posts true and factual, or not? The personal attack by this person who represents the Southwood elders is according to the New Calvinist playbook. After laying the foundation of this doctrine for the better part of a year, facts are not needed, only an unction from the elders on high. And apparently, this former member of Southwood is apparently a “nut job” also, but his post is referenced with specifics, and those specifics are either true or not true.
Secondly, New Calvinist elders are never shy about lying. I have complimented the PCA on numerous occasions concerning their brave stand against this doctrine when it was known as Sonship theology. Notable Presbyterian Jay Adams wrote a book in contention against the doctrine in 1999. Is he a nut? Is Terry Johnson a nut? The pastor I cite in the last post concerning Tchividjian’s newest book (Southwood’s pastor and elders endorse Tchividjian): is he a nut? Is Dr. Peter Masters (pastor of the Metropolitan) a nut? What makes me a nut? I can answer that: anybody who disagrees with the Southwood elders is a nut, and those who contend against them are even worse.
Thirdly, concerning the comments in the email that are unbecoming of an elder, ie., the suggestion that I live in my mother’s basement, I will not address. But I will say this: leaders who follow this doctrine seek to control parishioners, and this can be seen in his email. He is confident that all that is needed is to merely tell the congregants that I am a “ nut job” living in my mother’s basement, and all that I have to say is “drivi[e,sic]l,” and that will be that—problem solved. When New Calvinists seek to take over a church, this is their first order of business, to control the congregation through demotivation: “We are vile sinners who are no better off than unbelievers,” “We must depend on others to reveal our sin because we are unable to see it ourselves,” “We must outdo each other in seeing the depths of our vileness before God,” “We must stay at the foot of the cross,” etc., etc.
But this elder’s command/order/ imperative to the congregation to not read my posts is a serious, serious, red flag. Cultwatch.com says the following:
Common sense tells us that a person who does not consider all information may make an unbalanced decision. Filtering the information available or trying to discredit it not on the basis of how true it is, but rather on the basis of how it supports the party line, is a common control method used throughout history…. Legitimate groups have nothing to fear from their members reading critical information about them….If you are instructed by a group not to read information critical of the group, then that is a sign of a cult” [emphasis mine].
As I have said before, and will continue to say, this doctrine is spawning cult-like churches throughout the US. Other than in the email, the use of unbalanced self-character assassination and the character assassination of dissenters to control information and make parishioners dependent is evident at Southwood. Cultwatch states:
Character Assassination is used to help create the guilt in you. Character Assassination is a type of false reasoning used by people and groups who have no real arguments. The technical name for Character Assassination is “The Ad hominem Fallacy”.
Fifthly:
He is not PCA but a reformed Baptist who has nothing good to say about John Piper, Tim Keller, Bryan Chappell, Billy Graham and the Apostle Paul.
I admit, the accusation that I have nothing good to say about the beloved apostle Paul cuts deep, and I find the listing of the others in the same sentence with him far more offensive than anything I would ever dare say about the apostle Paul. I am also aware of what New Calvinists believe about Billy Graham, including his own great grandson Tullian Tchividjian, and find the elder’s mention of Graham disingenuous and contrived.
Furthermore, since a Presbyterian New Calvinist joined the SBC and founded a ministry that is now orchestrating hostile takeovers of Southern Baptist churches, Southern Baptists definitely have a stake in this fight to earnestly contend for the faith. Moreover, the assimilation of this doctrine into Southern Baptist circles by well-known Presbyterians Tim Keller, David Powlison, Ligon Duncan et al, is very evident. Therefore, I find the subtle accusation that I am a Reformed Baptist ( I am a Southern Baptist member in good standing) sticking my nose in Presbyterian business—without merit.
Sixthly, yes, like James D. Kennedy’s daughter, I was brought up on church discipline and excommunicated for contending against this vile doctrine of New Calvinism. Fortunately for her, Presbyterians have protections not afforded to Baptists. Because this has been introduced, and not by me, much will be written about this in the next parts and names will be named. Also, for Southwood members who want to know the details of how New Calvinists ravaged my extended family in order to try to muzzle me, and sent friends of mine fleeing to other states, email me at pmd@inbox.com for documentation. Others who are privy to this situation will also be contributing to this series.
Seventh, another control mechanism that can be seen in this email pertains to the dismissal of credibility in regard to “layman.” Though to say that I am a consummate layman is not exactly true, I have no reason to reject this label because nearly all of the false doctrine permeating today’s church comes from Christian academia. One of the few exceptions is the uneducated, New Calvinist, CJ Mahaney, former president of SGM ministries who was forced to step down for parishioner abuse. He is presently being sheltered by the New Calvinist camp. SGM, via New Calvinist doctrine and strategies, has been labeled a cult by many and there are several expose websites that document their abuses (SGM survivors.com is one example).
Lord willing, this ministry will continue to post daily on the Southwood issue until the December 4th meeting. The goal is to supply the Southwood congregation with information, information, and more information. My wife has also prepared a post in response to “elder” Nash’s character assassination.
If elder Nash has the intestinal fortitude to call me a “nut job” while looking into my eyes, he can email me at pmd@inbox.com and that can be arranged. At that time, he is more than welcome to accept a free copy of my book, “The Truth About New Calvinism,” so I can serve Nash by teaching him the history of the doctrine he believes. Like him, I would be inclined to think I am a nut job also, except for the fact that a well-known seminary is putting the book in their library, and reputable ministries are ordering multiple copies; so, maybe not. I would be amiss not to give the credit to several other “layman” who contributed to the book and made it possible.
paul
The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church: Part 2; Southwood’s Future Family Tree?
Here We Go Again: The New Calvinist Takeover of Southwood Presbyterian Church; Part 1
“This issue couldn’t be clearer; there are two gospels among us, and New Calvinist David Powlison plainly said so accordingly. He even admitted that the notable Jay Adams doesn’t agree with his gospel. This should incite serious questions among God’s people….Southwood must choose their gospel and stand for it. What else is there?”
It plays out daily in the American church from coast to coast:
Therefore, the pattern is the same: new pastors assume leadership in a church that doesn’t know what New Calvinism is, and the church takes it for granted that their theology is orthodox. Then once in, they replace present leadership with those of like mind, and begin to make vast and rapid changes because they see that church as a bastion of falsehood that has sent many to hell. Then, dissenters are mercilessly mowed down and muzzled, usually via church discipline. In most cases, the dissenters don’t have a full understanding of what they are dealing with, they just know something isn’t right (The Truth About New Calvinism [TTANC] p. 134).
I don’t know any inside details concerning the present controversy at Southwood Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, Alabama. Some or all of the elements cited above from TTANC might be evident, but one thing is clear: a New Calvinist “pastor” recently assumed leadership, and the congregation has realized that he isn’t what he seemed to be. Less than a year after assuming leadership, we read the following on their website:
November 17, 2011
To the members & friends of Southwood Presbyterian Church,
Last evening the Session of Southwood Presbyterian Church met again to consider the matters before the church. After much prayer from both the members of the Session and members of the congregation the Lord provided a decision with no dissension or abstention. The UNANIMOUS motion reads as follows:
“With repentance and conviction over our own personal and corporate sin, particularly for having stirred dissension with a premature motion delivered after Monday night’s meeting, the Session has met and deliberated further on the issues before our church. Having considered the breadth of the situation and our unified desire for the peace and purity of the church, the Session does hereby revise the purpose of the called congregational meeting to begin addressing the myriad of issues brought before us, including Jean F. Larroux, III, but we are not recommending the dissolution of the pastoral relationship with him at this meeting. Furthermore, we are in need of, thankful for and desirous to have further prayer from the congregation in all our deliberations. Submitted by Bob Greenman, Clerk.”
The Session will meet again on Monday evening, November 21st and greatly desires your prayers and support for a continued spirit of unity and peace as we begin to make plans for addressing the myriad of issues before us. The called congregational meeting will be held on Sunday, December 4, 2011, in the sanctuary of Southwood Presbyterian Church commencing at 12:30pm.
God is at work. His Spirit is moving to bring forgiveness and healing. I personally urge you to work toward, pray for and labor after unity, charity and peace. Let your love be known among all men.
Yours and His,
Jean F. Larroux, III
Larroux is the pastor in question. A perusal of their website confirms that he is the epitome of New Calvinism. When the congregation brought him in to assume leadership, did they know what a New Calvinist is? No. Did Larroux know what a New Calvinist is? Yes. Did he know the congregation didn’t know what a New Calvinist is? Yes. Could I be wrong about these assumptions? I doubt it.
What Does Jean F. Larroux, III Represent?
So what’s a New Calvinist? As we shall see, they are legends in their own minds. The movement originated in 1970 when a Seventh-day Adventist named Robert Brinsmead met an Anglican theologian named Geoffrey Paxton in Australia. Brinsmead was attempting to reform Adventism through his studies in Reformed doctrine. Together, they formed a theological think tank named the Australian Forum project. They were later joined by Graeme Goldsworthy who wrote the Goldsworthy Trilogy which is presently the New Calvinist standard for Bible interpretation (TTANC chapters 3 and 4).
The Forum’s magazine became the most widely publicized theological journal among English speaking people (one edition had over one million copies printed), and caught the attention of a Westminster graduate by the name of Jon Zens in the early 70’s. He joined the Forum’s efforts to formulate their central doctrine into a consistent systematic theology. Their primary doctrine that was the hub of everything they taught was called the centrality of the objective gospel (COG). The doctrine fused justification and sanctification together into a progressive justification that replaced sanctification. Zens helped to form a systematic theology that would attempt to make the issues of law and covenants fit with COG doctrine. Today, that doctrine is known as New Covenant Theology (TTANC chapter 5).
The Forum had vast influence at Westminster Seminary during the 70’s and early 80’s. A professor there by the name of Dr. John Miller adapted COG into a doctrine that emphasized more of a counseling model. He dubbed it “Sonship Theology.” His understudies were Tim Keller and David Powlison. Powlison used Sonship/COG to mold his Dynamics of Biblical Change which is the counseling model for Westminster’s CCEF. Two of Powlison’s understudies, Paul David Tripp and Timothy Lane, articulated the doctrine in How People Change, published by Punch Press in 2006. The book fits the Forum’s COG doctrine to a “T.” Donn Arms (M.Div.) of INS recently wrote an unfavorable review of the book and pointed out its disturbing elements.
However, the doctrine experienced a heavy pushback among Presbyterians in 1996-1999, so the Sonship name was dropped and replaced with “Gospel Transformation.” Jay Adams, who wrote a book in contention against the doctrine when it was known as Sonship, thought the doctrine had faded away. Under its stealth era between 2000 and 2008, the movement’s growth exploded. In 2004, a small group of protestants which included Jay Adams dubbed the movement “Gospel Sanctification.” Jay Adams has a GS archives on his blog and has written against it extensively. In 2008, the movement stumbled; it accepted the label “New Calvinism” which was coined by journalist Collin Hansen. New Calvinism is: COG, NCT, GS, and Sonship. It’s all the same doctrine
Visions of Grandeur
As stated in TTANC:
And New Calvinists are no exception, starting with their primary deception that must necessarily lead to arrogance. They believe they are a new Reformation and have the true gospel, and evangelicalism at large has been propagating a false gospel for the past 100 years. This line of thought and the specific differences in the two gospels can be seen in the following statement by New Calvinist Tullian Tchividjian:
“As I’ve said before, I once assumed (along with the vast majority of professing Christians) that the gospel was simply what non-Christians must believe in order to be saved, while afterward we advance to deeper theological waters. But I’ve come to realize that ‘the gospel isn’t the first step in a stairway of truths, but more like the hub in a wheel of truth.’ As Tim Keller explains it, the gospel isn’t simply the ABCs of Christianity, but the A-through-Z. The gospel doesn’t just ignite the Christian life; it’s the fuel that keeps Christians going every day. Once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day. Since we never leave off sinning, we can never leave the gospel.”
Notice that Tchividjian refers to the other camp as the “vast majority” of other Christians who don’t believe in New Calvinism’s sanctification by justification gospel. The Major themes of a New Calvinist biannual convention, Together for the Gospel (T4G) have been “the unadjusted gospel” and “the underestimated gospel.” A popular phrase among them in the blogsphere has been the “scandalous gospel.” Regarding the thesis of this book, their gospel makes much of God and little of Man by reducing our role in God’s work to the least common denominator, but they have done that so well, that much is being made of the men who have done such a good job of making much of God. The four men who founded T4G, a Presbyterian, two Southern Baptists, and a Charismatic, have been dubbed the “core four” and have a cult following that approaches creepiness.
This whole Reformation motif was started by the Forum which taught that all doctrines either fall into the objective gospel or subjective experience. Subjective spirituality was supposedly spawned by Rome and resulted in a reversal of justification and sanctification. Therefore, the Reformers rediscovered the objective gospel which ignited the Reformation, and also taught that the job wasn’t done (semper reformanda), and you can imagine who contemporary New Calvinists think that duty has fallen to. This is all covered in chapter four along with documentation concerning the fact that John Piper, one of the “elder statesmen” of the New Calvinist movement agrees with that scenario. This us against them mentality was passed down from the Forum and blossoms in the movement to this very day. They are the children of the Reformers—we are Rome.
And this arrogance translates into a predominant characteristic of New Calvinism: heavy-handed leadership style. As far as New Calvinists are concerned, evangelicals have been leading people into hell for the past 100 years (their estimation of when semper reformanda was lost) and any interference with the “unadjusted gospel” will be dealt with—no holds barred. The weapon of choice is church discipline (pages 130, 131).
The Two Gospels of Our Day
There are two gospels afoot in our day, and those doctrines can be defined by the contention between two notable men:
The crux of the matter can be further ascertained from Powlison’s message at Piper’s church as mentioned before:
“ This might be quite a controversy, but I think it’s worth putting in. Adams had a tendency to make the cross be for conversion. And the Holy Spirit was for sanctification. And actually even came out and attacked my mentor, Jack Miller, my pastor that I’ve been speaking of through the day, for saying that Christians should preach the gospel to themselves. I think Jay was wrong on that.”
At the core of a longstanding contention between Jay Adams and the CCEF clan, and later NANC also because of CCEF influence, was disagreement on the gospel. The distinction cannot be clearer—Adams believes that the gospel is for salvation, and then we move on in making disciples by teaching them to observe the whole counsel of God. Powlison, according to Westminster’s version of the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel which is Sonship Theology, believes the same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us. Powlison also mentioned the phrase that Miller coined that is the motto of contemporary New Calvinism: We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day (TTANC pages 81, 82).
What’s at Stake?
The truth and many other issues are at stake here, but one of the major concerns is the fact that New Calvinism has a tendency to create cult-like churches:
All this leads to many New Calvinist churches taking on cult-like tendencies. Exclusiveness (new Reformation), an attitude that some higher knowledge is a part of the movement that many are not “ready” for (the scandalous gospel), and a subjective view of Scripture (a gospel narrative, not instruction) is a mixture that will have bad results, and is the perfect formula for a cult-like church (TTANC p. 134).
And endnote 104:
Many New Calvinist churches fit all eight descriptive points published by cultwatch.com: 1. Deception 2. Exclusiveness 3. Intimidation 4. Love Bombing 5. Relationship Control 6. Information Control 7. Reporting Structure 8. Time Control (p. 145).
And Larroux is no exception. The Southwood website and blog is saturated with examples of how New Calvinists control parishioners with their doctrines of deep repentance and the total depravity of the saints. Donn Arms addresses these doctrines in some detail in his book review of How People Change. Frankly, Larroux’s writings on this site are so saturated with this doctrine—I don’t even know where to start. That’s why this post will be a series until their December meeting.
Unlike Coral Ridge, perhaps Southwood parishioners can at least know the details of why they are being ravaged rather than being led to the slaughter like oxen. I can at least do that for them. One can toss a dart onto the Southwood website and nail verbiage by Larroux that is designed to control and manipulate—it’s everywhere, whether putting God’s stamp of approval on everything he does or this: “Would you trust him to determine whether or not you were in sin EVEN IF you didn’t think you were?” Notice that the authority here is what an elder or someone else sees in your life and not Scripture. Sonshippers call this “speaking life into you,” a phrase that I saw being used on the site at least once by Larroux. I also noticed that those who questioned Larroux’s fitness to lead Southwood are the ones who are now repenting. This is typical. I warn the Southwood parishioners, I know of New Calvinist congregations that will barley even buy new cloths without consulting with the elders first.
Southwood Must Choose a Gospel and Contend for It
It is evident, based on what I have read on their blog, that Larroux is controlling the agenda in this situation:
God is at work. His Spirit is moving to bring forgiveness and healing. I personally urge you to work toward, pray for and labor after unity, charity and peace. Let your love be known among all men.
Oh really? Per the usual, New Calvinist “pastors” have a direct line to God’s throne. Southwood better wise-up, this isn’t a time for peace and unity at Southwood, this is a time to earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. This is like one of the seven letters; if anything, Christ has something against Southwood because they are tolerating false doctrine.
This issue couldn’t be clearer; there are two gospels among us, and New Calvinist David Powlison plainly said so accordingly. He even admitted that the notable Jay Adams doesn’t agree with his gospel. This should incite serious questions among God’s people. Between Jean F. Larroux, III and Jay Adams, I can tell you where I would put my money; that’s a no-brainer. Southwood must choose their gospel and stand for it. What else is there?
paul
The Separation of Faith and Obedience is Anti-Gospel
“….faith is not faith until it does something”
While on sabbatical to write TTANC, Susan and I have been visiting Calvary Baptist Church in Xenia, Ohio pastored by David Conrad. By the way, our home used to be the building they worshiped in. Pastor David is preaching through the book of Romans, and 10:13-21 was on the plate for last Sunday. The focus of this post is verses 16 and 17:
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.
What does it mean to obey the gospel? This is so simple that it is easy to miss: verse 16 could rightfully be restated as, But they have not believed the gospel. The apostle Paul first frames acceptance of the gospel via obedience, then he quotes Isaiah who frames acceptance of the gospel via belief: “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” Then Paul restates what Isaiah said in the context of faith: “So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ” Faith, belief, obedience—all the same. Obedience doesn’t come from faith or flow from faith, it is faith.
Let’s visit another passage that illustrates this. Christ said in John 3:36;
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Again, in this verse with two independent clauses linked by the same subject of eternal life, obedience and belief could be switched between the two clauses, or either one used for both.
Is this really that hard to understand? You can’t separate obedience and faith (the hindrance of sin will not be addressed in this post). Why? Because faith isn’t faith until it does something. What a pity that theologians have made the book of James so controversial in regard to the whole supposed works/faith issue. All James was saying is that faith isn’t faith until it does something:
Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? (James 2:20).
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works (James 2:22).
And what is the standard for the works of faith? What works? Again, James does not leave us without an answer:
But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing (James 1:25).
What about boasting? There isn’t any because faith is a gift from God. If God doesn’t grant it to us, we do not have it. But be sure of this: like all gifts, once one receives it—they own it. It is our faith, and we also own the obedience that is faith—it’s our obedience as well. And as James wrote, the blessings are in completing our faith with obedience to the truth (2:22). In the parable of the talents Christ warned against separating faith and works, calling those who do so “wicked, lazy servant[s].”
Christians can get in the middle of the Arminian/Calvinism fray if they want to, but both are guilty of distorting saving faith; both separate what is one, obedience and faith. Both brainwash our children with the faith alone mantra. Yes indeed, faith alone, but also obedience alone. You can obey the gospel or believe the gospel—pick one, they are both good. Say it anyway you want to; it’s all the same. Arminians separate the two by teaching faith alone without works. That’s simply not true. Once the gift is given, obedience comes with it. We are justified by the gift, but after that, faith works, or you don’t have it, or you are not working out what has been worked in.
The Reformed are a little more craftier in their damning lies. They concur with the proposition of this post, but in their endeavor to be the gatekeepers of God’s self-esteem, they devise complicated theological systems that make our faith and obedience Christ’s faith and obedience. No gift has really been granted, we are merely the prepositions of salvation. This comes from not only separating faith and obedience, or law/gospel, but then synthesizing justification and sanctification. Obviously, if there is no difference between the two, we must be sanctified the same way we are justified which is passive. Receiving a gift is passive, putting the gift to work is not. But if the same gospel that saved us sanctifies us, it’s all about receiving and no giving.
Even as an unbeliever I knew this truth intuitively—I think by the common grace of God. I was begged by an Arminian to just “say the prayer.” Bless his heart, when I wouldn’t, he wept. Better than a Reformed person who would have responded this way: “Oh well, just means you’re not chosen.” Of course, I wouldn’t have bought into that either. I wouldn’t profess because I knew I wasn’t willing to leave the old Paul behind. I still liked the old Paul. Even then, I wouldn’t have known how to word it, but I knew that there is no difference between faith and obedience.
Christ, the apostles, and the prophets used the two words interchangeably throughout the Scriptures. I wish we could pose a question to James: “James, can one be saved if he/she doesn’t understand that obedience and faith are the same thing?” Is love for God a requirement for saving faith? Ok, well, Christ said the following in John 14:
If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
Then immediately following that statement He said:
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper
Sure, we can’t do it without two “helpers,” Christ and the Holy Spirit, but I’m thinking with those two helping the job should get done! What kind of gospel displays a life that is no better than many others with both Christ and the Holy Spirit helping? But Michael Horton says that exerting our own effort in the process is trying to “be the gospel” rather than merely preaching the gospel. That’s a lie.
However, I have some truthful news for both Arminians and the Reformed alike. To the Arminian: No love for God—no salvation. To the Reformed: In your favorite Bible, the ESV, Christ called the Holy Spirit our “helper.” A helper doesn’t do it for us, they help. I thought you guys are educated? Even a child knows a helper helps and doesn’t do it all. And the fact that we do something in the process of sanctification is not “bad news.” Stop lying and start telling the truth for a change.
What faith is in regard to the gospel is obviously a critical question, and separating faith and obedience is a false gospel. The idea that obedience is optional or done by “Christ for us” is not the good news of salvation. True faith is a gift that we cannot earn, but once we have it, it is never without works, or it is not true faith—being alone. The devils merely believe only, and do tremble.
paul
DeYoung’s Plan Won’t Work
Special K is at it again. Kevin DeYoung keeps writing orthodox-like articles about sanctification in hopes that he can get someone from the New Calvinist crowd to kinda agree with him without receiving the dreaded tweet from the first pope of New Calvinism, John Piper the First. Bye-bye you fill in the blank. Have you heard? Rob Bell is resigning from the church he founded—done in by the dreaded tweet.
I can tell from reading his stuff that he knows New Calvinism is propagating antinomian doctrine. However, they are so subtle about it that they could slip back into orthodoxy and the dumbed-down congregants of our day would never know the difference. This is what Special K is hoping for so he keeps writing stuff about sanctification to get someone to join what might be the beginning of the Great Slither back to orthodoxy.
So far—no takers. For one thing, you have Tullian Tchividjian pushing back against DeYoung and as many of his victims know—he’s one bad dude. Everyone saw how he cleaned house at Coral Ridge and few want any part of that. Chad Bresson, the author of Vossed World blog and a New Calvinist elder weighed in as well, saying that Young’s discussion of the difference between monergistc sanctification and synergistic sanctification is “interesting.” Both articles were the usual nuanced New Calvinist double-speak because they just can’t come right out and say that they believe Christ obeys for us. I doubt Special K still believes that, but you know, a man has to eat. If he can get the Great Slither going—he can have it both ways.
Bresson’s post, about a thousand words later, concluded with the following profound unction: “In the end DeYoung is helpful in showing us the drawbacks of using certain terminology to describe what the Bible teaches us about the role of the Spirit and our participation in our transformation into Christ’s image. We are participants in salvation history. Language is not always precise in delineating the inner machinations of how that participation comes to be. It’s easy to see the downward slopes off the deep end in both directions. And DeYoung, like others who may disagree on certain points, wants to avoid the deep ends.”
Likewise, DeYoung’s conclusion was nearly as profound: “So what do we see in this short survey of Reformed theologians. For starters, we do not see the exact language of monergism or synergism applied to sanctification….Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit….Third, we see in this Reformed survey the need to be careful with our words. For example, “passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active.”
Huh? Well, there was some definitive verbiage by pastor Terry Rayburn who isn’t very popular among that bunch because he stinks at nuance. Here were his comments at VW:
So the best question is not ” monergistic or synergistic?” The better question is, “Sanctification: by Law or by Grace?” The clear biblical answer is “by Grace”.
The Law (OC or NC) can neither save nor sanctify. We are no longer under the power of sin, why? Because we have the Law? No, because we are no longer UNDER Law, but Grace (Rom. 6:14). The Law is the very POWER of sin (1 Cor. 15:56), so certainly can’t sanctify. Of course, a quick Bible word search will show that the concept of “sanctification” is MOSTLY zeroed in on our once-for-all already-done sanctification. What we loosely call “progressive sanctification” is always by grace through faith, just like initial salvation.
Go Terry!!! Yaaaaaaaa Terry!!!! I love those New Calvinist guys that just come right and say sanctification is by the same grace that saved us, which is monergistic, soooo—you fill in the blank. Will the next Piper Tweet be, “Yaaaaaa Terry!!!!!”? Bresson didn’t follow-up on Rayburn’s comment, go figure.
Here, let me help also by quoting their Reformed daddy, RC Sproul. I agree with Sproul, this is a simple thing:
Sanctification is cooperative. There are two partners involved in the work. I must work and God will work. If ever the extra-biblical maxim, “God helps those who help themselves,” had any truth, it is at this point. We are not called to sit back and let God do all the work. We are called to work, and to work hard. To work something out with fear and trembling is to work with devout and conscientious rigor. It is to work with care, with a profound concern with the end result” (“Pleasing God” p. 227).
As far as Rayburn’s candid comment about how the NC crowd views the law, especially John Piper, here is what Sproul said in the same book:
From the law comes knowledge of sin. Also from the law comes knowledge of Righteousness.
In working with God to be “set apart,” the law is an absolute must, and Bresson’s belief as he alludes to above that the Bible is a gospel narrative and not for instruction in sanctification is antinomianism of the baser sort. And obviously, if we believe use of the law propagates sin—that’s a whole other issue as well.
This is a simple thing: “I can DO all things through Chrsit who strengthens me.” We DO and Chrsit strengthens, and it’s a seamless experience—not a New Calvinist either all the Spirit or all me hermeneutic. But Sproul has it right; if we don’t work—neither does the Spirit: “I must work and God will work.” That’s why we will be judged in the end at the Bema Seat judgment that New Calvinists have to deny. Not a judgment for justification, but a judgment in regard to how well we appropriated the gifts God granted us. And by the way, when you receive a “gift”—you now own it!
The only thing confusing is the double-speak New Calvinist have to use to teach that Jesus obeys for us without actually saying it. And Special K might as well give up because antinomians rarely repent.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
18 comments