Repost: “Can Christian Women Gone Wild Save Us From New Calvinism?”
I have shared my theory in other posts that contemporary antinomians are like serial criminals. Not in essence of being actual criminals, but in their deep-seated desire to get caught. You have seen the plot in movies—serial criminals always dropping catch me if you can hints to the police. At least two antinomians of our day, Tullian Tchividjian and John Piper, are good examples of this. But first, let me say that I realize that I am one of the very few people around who equate Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology ( Tim Keller, a significant forerunner of Sonship theology, is one of the founders of TGC) / the gospel-driven life with antinomianism. However, my reasoning is simple; if we are sanctified by justification, that excludes the law either by obligation or ability. Neither do I buy into the idea that thinking the law is good—is an acceptable replacement for an obligation to obey it. Also, the fact that I rubbed shoulders with six GS proponents for several years, and I’m privy to the fact that they bragged about being antinomians is not helpful to those who are trying to persuade me otherwise.
Hold on, my phone is ringing: “Oh! Hi honey. Uh—uh , ya, hmmm. I know sweety, we have discussed this before—getting to the point and such, ya, I will get to the women shortly. Ok, talk to you later, bye!”
Anyway, Tullian Tchividjian recently dropped a really big hint by promoting the idea that preachers should strive to be accused of antinomianism as a way to validate their preaching as having enough Jesus. When one, lone man protested, it made national headlines in Christian circles. But despite Tchividjian’s efforts, it didn’t work. The one, lone protestant focused on the accusation element without considering for a moment that maybe TT really is antinomian. Whew, that was a close one! Michael Horton followed the same week by accusing an accuser of accusing him of antinomianism when the accuser never even used the word in the accusation. Another hint? Hmmmm.
Also, we have John Piper, the First Pope of New Calvinism, continually drawing attention to himself (hints?) by promoting heretics and refusing to correct associates that use profanity in public, while notable evangelicals at large cover for him, and not for a moment considering that any of this has anything to do with the guy’s theology while teaching that what we believe always dictates what we do—unless you’re Pope John the First. A prime example of this is Piper’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at one of his Desiring God conventions. But hello, when you believe that every verse in the Bible is about the gospel, how can the particular elements of God’s truth really have that much significance? If Warren also believes that the Bible is a plenary gospel narrative, everything else is fair game—so why wouldn’t they hangout together? In fact, a reader sent me a quote by Tchividjian in regard to his defense of Piper for the invite by saying something like this: “All truth is God’s truth, even if it comes from Rick Warren.”
But what’s up with Piper being defended by the likes of Phil Johnson, John MacArthur’s right-hand guy, in the following post: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/04/on-piper-warren-connection.html ? “I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He’s also one of my favorite authors.” Unbelievable. That is, until you read this in the same post:
“Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can’t touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper’s live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.
It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders’ roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul’s statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper’s stature. These things ought not to be.”
First of all, God is sovereign; it is obvious that God planned before the foundation of the Earth for me to marry Susan and not the woman who called Piper a clown. Besides, in the spirit of defending people just because we like them, are we sure that wasn’t her way of saying Piper is a follower of Edmund Clowney? As I unravel the sorted history of New Calvinism, there is some question as to who was really the father of Sonship theology that is the fundamental basis for neo-Calvinism—Clowney, or John “Jack” Miller. Clowney wrote Preaching Christ in All of Scripture, How Jesus Transforms the Ten Commandments, and Christian Meditation. Any of those themes sound familiar in Piper’s teachings? But if that’s not the case, to Phil Johnson’s point, how dare that woomun call out a man of “Piper’s stature” (did he really say that? Let me check again.Yep, he sure did). Well, that pretty much says it all—if one of the who’s who of the evangelical world teaches error, the uneducated book-buying peasants of American church culture need to keep their mouths shut and submit to the “ruling elders.” Worse yet, if not unthinkable, is the idea that one of the woomun peasants would speak out!
If Phil would check Acts 17:11: the Holy Spirit commends the Bereans for vetting Paul’s (the apostle) teachings and no gender is mentioned. In fact, verse 12 seems to indicate women were among them. And I know this is difficult for Phil, but John Piper is no apostle Paul. Furthermore, Priscilla and Aquila both instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26), and I doubt Piper is an Apollos as well. As far as Phil’s citing of 1Timothy 2:12, because of 1Corinthians 14:34, I would think Paul is referring to the corporate setting, and not the milieu of life in general. Phil’s boss, John MacArthur, agrees; see his comments on 1Timothy 2:12 in his Bible Commentary, page 1783. He states the following: “He is not prohibiting them from teaching in other appropriate conditions and circumstances (cf. Acts 18:26; Titus 2:3,4).” John’s over the Seminary and Phil’s over other stuff, right?
Moreover, now that we have established that women can callout man-leaders of high stature, Phil apparently deleted a woman who was dead-on regarding Piper taking a permanent sabbatical. Piper took an eight-month sabbatical for beyond unbiblical reasons. An eight-month, paid sabbatical to eliminate several “species of heart idols.”? And the obvious logical conclusion as follows: an eight-month sabbatical instead of being counseled by his own elders; where is all of that in the Bible? Add to that his announcement that he is hoping to remain pastor there five years after returning from his sabbatical. The lady is absolutely right, why not just retire and be done with it? And by the way, HOW DO YOU PREDETERMINE HOW LONG IT WILL TAKE TO ELIMINATE “SEVERAL SPECIES OF HEART IDOLS”? ARE THEY THE EIGHT-MONTH TYPE? Have we lost our minds?
Phil also wrote: “It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There’s evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women….” Yes, discerning Christian woman gone wild, and thank goodness for them. Phil sates that it is mostly women who are speaking up and calling for leaders to be held accountable. Sad. And the women folk are right about something else: something can be done about it; separation, not inviting them to conferences (Matthew 18:17). Rejection, not fellowship (Titus 3:10 Rom 16:17,18), Rebuke, not excuses (1Timothy 5:19).
John Piper is one of the featured speakers at this years TGC conference in Chicago. Who knows what hint he will drop this time around. Will some Christian woman gone wild have to satisfy his deep-seated desire to be exposed? Can Christian women gone wild save the church from New Calvinism? Stay tuned.
paul
The New Calvinist License To Kill: And Did God Really Condemn Christ To Hell?
This isn’t real complicated. Gospel Contemplationism, by virtue of its reductionism must necessarily be embellished or you will simply run out of material. Even for intelligent people like John Piper, the necessity to go “ever deeper and deeper” into the gospel that saved us can be a real challenge. I have predicted in the past that two things must eventually happen in this movement: “truth” will be embellished beyond the confines of being defensible, and because contemplative theologies are by nature antinomian—revelations of decadence will eventually begin to emerge.
Embellished “Truth”
The challenge is to see the gospel in every verse of the Bible. The cradle of New Calvinism, the Australian Forum, a Reformed think tank created by Robert Brinsmead, taught that the Holy Spirit only illumines Scripture in context of the gospel. The Forum also taught that the letter of Scripture itself had to be judged by the “spirit of the gospel.” The gospel is spirit, but using Scripture for instruction was to use the Bible like the Jews used the Torah. “The Spirit gives life, but the letter kills” (Robert Brinsmead, The Danger of Biblicism).
Of course, a lot of awesome things can be written and preached about justification. A now good friend of mine who sang at my wedding introduced herself to me by complaining about my continual calling out of Piper. She mentioned that she had recently read a Piper book and thought it was awesome. I’m sure it was. Justification is an awesome subject. I then challenged her to reread the book and find examples of truth that could be applied to life in the spirit of Matthew 7:24-27. She called two days later, astonished at her findings, and a friendship was born.
However, the human mind has limitations, and soon, the need to implement the imagination will arise. Hence, at the 2009 Resolved conference, John Piper and CJ Mahaney taught that Christ’s cry to the father while on the cross was “the scream of damnation.” Apparently, they got the concept from RC Sproul, who used to be rock solid, but now it would appear that senility has opened his mind to the nonsensical theological acrobatics of our day. Likewise, the same consideration might apply to John MacArthur who spoke at the conference and also sponsored it; he is getting up in years as well. I offer this as a possible excuse for both of them though the vision of my heart longs to see them as the gray-haired stalwarts of the faith that I thought they were. Here is what Sproul said:
“Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son, cursing Him to the pit of hell while on the cross. Here was the Son’s ‘descent into hell.’ Here the fury of God raged against Him. His scream was the scream of the damned. For us” (Tabletalk magazine, My God, My God, Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me? April 1990, p. 6).
Steve Camp, on his blog, wrote a tame but thoroughly convincing argument against such a notion. But the fact that Camp thought such a significant expenditure of effort was needed is indicative of our day; surely, only ten years ago, such a thesis would have invoked a horrendous outcry among God’s people.
Contrastively, in a sickening display of affirmation by the poster child of mindless Koolaid drinking, Justin Taylor posted an email sent to Piper and Mahaney by a well known New Calvinist, praising them for this supposed new and wonderful take on the gospel. Stay tuned, more will come, including the weekly re-baptizing of Christians if it is not already going on.
Decadence
Jennifer Knapp, the Christian music artist who is a professing lesbian, recently praised Al Mohler (one of the “core four” of the New C. T4G org.) for his comments concerning “homophobia,” a term coined by non-professing liberals. My new friend Peter Lumpkins reports on it extensively on his blog: http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/ Go there and type in “homophobia” in the search engine box and several articles written by Peter on this event will appear. Jennifer Knapp is a good example of how New Covenant Theology, a tenet of New Calvinism, will work itself out in the lives of, well, “God’s people?” Note here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-x5 and here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-kP .
As I state in my upcoming book, “Another Gospel,” this doctrine is indicative of the antinomianism that will be prevalent in the last days. In fact, the antichrist is referred to several times as the “anomia one” or the “man of anomia.” Also prevalent with antinomianism is lovelessness. In speaking of the last days, Christ said that the hearts of many would be cold “because of anomia.” The heartless character of this movement is well documented; for instance, the hostile takeover of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. Another example would be the excommunication of 256 members for non-attendance from a SBC church. The pastor of that church is a hero among New Calvinists for that reason, and many other NC churches followed the example. By the way, it is my understanding that the same church has closed mid-week Bible studies which smells cultish to me.
This ministry (GS Infonet) has its share of information in regard to the heartlessness of New Calvinism, especially in the way church discipline is used to control parishioners, including parishioners being brought up on discipline for not tithing. Others are disciplined for questioning doctrine while some in the same churches live together out of wedlock which apparently is a law issue and not a gospel issue. The practice of integrating church discipline with formal and informal “biblical counseling” is also a major concern. When Gospel Contemplationism doesn’t correct the sin, much to the surprise of the counselee, they find themselves under discipline for “unrepentance.” Others are counseled that they are in a mixed marriage (saved/unsaved) because one spouse holds to a synergistic view of sanctification. Truly, no amount of words could adequately describe the carnage being left behind by this movement. Lastly, it is my understanding that Soverien Grace Ministries, overseen by one of the “core four,” CJ Mahaney, has amassed an unbelievable record of pastoral abuse and decadence while being lent creditably by the who’s who of evangelical New Calvinists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur . I have been referred to Survivor’s of SGM.com, but frankly I am already drowning in this kind of information regarding New Calvinism. Apparently, such revelations forced CJ Mahaney into a “sabbatical” to deal with his mistakes while his promoters decline comment.
Bottom line: if you carry the Calvinist/Reformed label, you have a license to kill, and to rape, pillage, and steal—just don’t question doctrine or come up short on your tithe.
I saw a video trailer for the 2009 Resolved event where the damnation of Christ was proclaimed for the supposed purpose of showing mindless followers the gospel in a “deeper” way. I was aghast in regard to the mega rock star motif that dominated. That’s a whole other post—the cult of personality that is New Calvinism. For now, I will not go there, but will rather close with a poem written by the aforementioned friend who used to follow John Piper:
Enamored
Enamored is a youthful state,
Where fledgling citizens confiscate
Old ideas and make them new,
A secular taste for Holy truth.
But I reject this play of light,
And move past men with deeds that blight
And tarnish souls with sinful depth
While we proceed gravely inept
To grasp the ark when dirt is better.
Douse the illusion!
Illumine the Letter!
~Lara Moon
paul
A Response to Aaron O’Kelly, Part Two: Dr. O’Kelly is Only Totally Depraved When He Talks About It
Once again, pardon me for concluding from statements like this that Horton sees no difference between the spiritual condition of the saved /unsaved, and their equal need for the gospel of justification only.
As we continue our work concerning Aaron O’Kelly’s response to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin, it is difficult to know where to go next; the response is rich with post material. However, in this second part, we will focus on the following excerpt as we continue to evaluate New Calvinism with Dr. O’Kelly’s help:
“Dohse does make the claim that the NC denies the significance of the new birth. Such a claim is simply false. Some figures on the chart, such as Goldsworthy, have argued that the message of the gospel cannot be equated with the message of the new birth (and to what degree the new birth should be categorized as a component of the gospel or as an implication of the gospel is a point on which you would find disagreement within the NC), but such a denial does not entail that the new birth is insignificant.
Furthermore, the claim that the official teaching of the NC is that believers remain totally depraved after regeneration is likewise suspect. I myself am not aware of any uniformity among the theologians on the chart with regard to this question, nor have I ever heard any of them discuss it at length. I would imagine that different theologians on the chart would speak of it in different ways. It is certainly no pillar of NC orthodoxy, as Dohse implies. In my own practice, I often speak of myself as totally depraved, but what I mean by that is, considered apart from the grace of Christ, I am totally depraved in and of myself. It is a conceptual category that enables me to speak of myself from a certain perspective, not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life. Again, this way of speaking likewise goes at least back to Luther.”
First, A-OK (Dr. Aaron O’Kelly) rightly words my claim: “Dohse does make the claim that the NC denies the significance of the new birth.” Then A-Ok follows with this: “Such a claim is simply false.” Really? I apologize that I got that idea from quotes such as this from New Calvinist Michael Horton:
“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?”
I further apologize that I got that idea because of the following: according to at least one author, much of Horton’s theological thinking and ministry philosophy was formed by the Australian Forum. In a particular article written by the Forum, Goeffrey Paxton states, “It [the new birth] 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.” I found this comparison when one of my readers flippantly commented that he wondered if Horton got one of his favorite jingles, “Christ’s doing and dying” from the Forum. For giggles, I looked into it and was shocked to find the latter quote from the Forum. The quote comes from an article written by the Forum entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” I suppose drawing any conclusions from such a title is presumptuous. Furthermore, Goldsworthy prefaced Paxton’s article with a footnote to make his point clear concerning this statement in Obituary for the Old Testament (G. Goldsworthy, PT vol.41 article2): “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism.”
Notice, I repeat, notice how all three quotes frame any emphasis on the new birth as another gospel: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer….but [rather] our….” “….by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against….” “And the new-birth oriented ‘Jesus-in-my-heart’ gospel [emphasis mine]….”
Moreover, Horton said this in 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.”
Once again, pardon me for concluding from statements like this that Horton sees no difference between the spiritual condition of the saved /unsaved, and their equal need for the gospel of justification only. And even though the consequences of “move[ing] on to something else” is the loss of justification (ie., your lost), he doesn’t qualify what “something else” is. In my first part, if you observe my citation of Tullian Tchividjian, his “something else” is “deeper theological waters.” Am I the only one who has a problem with this? Also, spare me the Horton quotes where he appears to emphasize obedience. Horton believes, like many New Calvinist, that biblical imperatives are meant to “drive us to despair of self righteousness” so that we will gain a deeper understanding of our need for justification—in contrast to new creatures who find joy in obedience (though joy does not walk with obedience at every moment) as they are aided by the “Helper” (ESV John 14:15-17).
Throughout his post A-OK employs the New Calvinist protocol to deflect accountability for any particular belief; “One final observation to make before I close is that Dohse appears to be completely unaware of the fact that a very substantive discussion, including a good bit of back-and-forth disagreement, has been going on right in the center of the NC for some time now over the very question of sanctification and how the gospel and our own personal efforts are related to it. Justin Taylor provided a roundup of that discussion here. A quick perusal of that conversation will reveal quite clearly that there is no official New Calvinist position on the question, as Dohse implies. It is an ongoing conversation with significant areas of disagreement within the movement.”
In case, after case, after case, after case, those who confront elders about what is being taught in their churches, and trying to get to the bottom of it, hear this: “Well, all of the elders do not agree on that point.” This is a classic method implemented by cults to avoid coming clean about what they believe until the sheep are “ready to receive it.” And in fact, I will be discussing in one of the next parts how New Calvinism nurtures a cult-like atmosphere in churches since A-OK brought the “cult” angle into the discussion.
However, A-OK does clarify his own position; I think, anyway. After implementing the aforementioned deflection technique cited in another part of his post, He states:
“In my own practice, I often speak of myself as totally depraved, but what I mean by that is, considered apart from the grace of Christ, I am totally depraved in and of myself. It is a conceptual category that enables me to speak of myself from a certain perspective, not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life. Again, this way of speaking likewise goes at least back to Luther.”
Here, we can see exactly what New Calvinist really believe about the new birth. First, why would it ever be necessary to speak of a Christian as totally depraved in any context? It goes without saying that if Christ does not indwell us we are not spiritually alive. So why frame anything that way unless you’re talking about BC/AC? And if that is what he is talking about in the above statement, he certainly doesn’t say so. I mean really: “Hey guys, did you know that if Christ didn’t indwell us we would be totally depraved?” Well, duh.
The key to understanding what A-OK is saying is the notation of these two phrases: “I am totally depraved in and of myself (present tense is assumed; ‘I am’)” and “….not a theological statement about the inefficacy of regeneration to give me spiritual life.” This concept was articulated by New Calvinist Paul David Tripp in How People Change. Throughout the book, Tripp refers to the “living Christ” over, and over again as if we didn’t know that Christ is alive. Then on pages 64, and 65 (2006 edition) he plainly states that Christians are spiritually dead, writing, “When you are dead you can’t do anything.” Simply stated, we are still spiritually dead and the living Christ within us obeys for us. This is also strongly implied by how many New Calvinists treat Galatians 2:20. We are not actually new creatures per se, but the only thing within us that is alive is Christ through the Holy Spirit. Before you reject this notion out of hand (though you must admit that it can be seen in Aaron’s careful wording), read Donn Arms’ book review on How People Change here: http://www.nouthetic.org/blog/?p=4793 Or here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC .
As Christians, if we are, as Dr. O’Kelly writes, “….totally depraved in and of myself,” how can the Holy Spirit be our “Helper.” What’s a helper? There is no helping the dead, the Holy Spirit would have to do all the work. And trust me, that’s what they really believe. Yet, not only did Christ say, “You must be born again,” the apostle Paul said, “Behold, all things are new.” New for whom? The Holy Spirit certainly doesn’t need anything new. The apostle also said to put off the old man (some translations, “former”) and put on the new creation. Does the Holy Spirit need to put anything new on Himself? I think not.
The implications here are profound. And frankly, I do not give a rat’s behind about disagreements between New Calvinist hacks. At the very least, their position is unclear—that’s on them. Moreover, again, where did Luther ever write: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday”? And if he did, so what? The Bereans didn’t give the apostle Paul a pass on truth; and trust me, Luther was no apostle Paul.
paul
New Calvinism Further Exposed With Help From Aaron O’Kelly: Part One
This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did.
A New Calvinist blogger by the name of Aaron O’Kelly has responded to my open letter to Peter Lumpkin. Among many other accomplishments, Aaron obtained a doctorate degree from Southern seminary which is of particular interest to me as a Southern Baptist.
I will address the title of Aaron’s post first. It exemplifies the New Calvinist motif: us against them; evangelical Catholicism against the children of Luther; the scandalous doctrine of freedom; and partaking with Paul the apostle in being called an antinomian, etc. Though I could cite a gazillion examples, one from New Calvinist guru Tullian Tchividjian should suffice:
“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.”
That’s the mentality—they are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians. Let that sink in. Towards the end of his post, Aaron eludes to their kinship with the great apostle in being called antinomian because they have discovered the long lost gospel:
“Dohse’s open letter is one more indication of how scandalous the gospel really is. When we receive the unfathomable good news that God receives us into his favor on account of Christ alone, and not because of anything in us, we instinctively recoil in an attempt to protect this glorious message from the charge of antinomianism. The pure gospel is too strong for us, and we think we need to mix it with a good bit of law to keep it from becoming too dangerous.”
And:
“But the gospel of the New Testament is the good news of freedom from the law through union with the crucified and risen Christ (Romans 7:1-7). It is a message that Paul was slandered for proclaiming, as though he encouraged sin (Romans 3:8). And those who have proclaimed it faithfully have been slandered ever since.”
O’Kelly also mentions that he considers himself a “Luthero-Calvinistic Baptist, but that hasn’t caught on yet.” Give it time Aaron, I’m sure it will eventually. After all, like Luther, New Calvinists are set apart from the “vast majority” of professing Christians.
I might also mention that the we are like the apostle Paul because he was accused of antinomianism also was tried on Jason Hood when New Calvinist Dane Ortlund responded to his calling out of Tchividjian. I comment on the exchange in another post:
“Moreover, a new one that I hadn’t heard before was mentioned by Hood regarding Ortlund’s original challenge—the whole idea that today’s New Calvinists are being ‘falsely’ accused of antinomianism like the apostle Paul was during his ministry (Rom 3:8). Therefore, if they are being accused of antinomianism, they must be preaching just like Paul was. Oh brother!”
Hood’s theological trouncing of Ortland’s position can be observed here: http://goo.gl/wYTrV .
Much of Aaron O’Kelly’s (hereafter: “A-OK”) post addresses the genealogy chart. Perfect. After likening me to a government worker, he says the following:
“All kidding aside, charts like these have the effect of distorting the character of broad movements by implying that the adherents of the movement are members of a tightly knit group (cult?) who have conspired together to defend the novel teachings of their founder(s), to whom they are staunchly loyal.”
“Genealogy charts” and “family trees” (terms I use often to refer to the chart) in no way infer what A-OK is saying. Theological frameworks often leave behind a long history of people who never knew each other. Besides, the theological journal of the Australian Forum (hereafter: “AF”), Present Truth (hereafter “PT”), had a huge readership in Reformed Baptist circles and places like Westminster Seminary. In fact, Jon Zens was introduced to Brinsmead and the Forum through PT while he was a student at Westminster. To make my point, A-OK states the following concerning the top of the chart:
“I myself have never heard of the majority of names at the top of the list. I have heard of Graeme Goldsworthy, and I think he is an excellent Bible teacher. He is one influence among many (including some other names on the chart, but also including a large number of names that are not) who has played a role in my understanding of the Bible. Does that make me a card-carrying member of the group represented by this chart? If so, I must have missed the meeting where we learned the password and the secret handshake.”
So, A-OK seems to say that he has never heard of Zens or Brinsmead (he implies that Goldsworthy is the only one he knows of at the top of the chart), but it is well documented that Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology with considerable contributions by Brinsmead. Certainly, A-OK has heard of New Covenant Theology. He may even ascribe to it, but that doesn’t mean he’s a loyal follower of Jon Zens; or for that matter, even knew him or heard of him which seems to be the case.
Another indication that one does not need to know of the conceivers of a doctrine (or that my chart would imply a conspiracy) to embrace its elements passed on by various means, is the fact that A-OK parrots the AF’s position on the supposed subjective aspect of the gospel—even using their terminology. Here is what he writes:
“I am not sure why Dohse would consider it controversial to say ‘the gospel is something completely outside of us.’ To say otherwise would be to imply that salvation comes, at least in part, by gazing at our navels.”
Now consider what one of the AF3 wrote (Geoffrey Paxton, who I doubt he has heard of either) on the same wise:
“Such evangelical naval watching does nothing to commend Christianity….” (The False Gospel of the New Birth PT vol.37 article 4). The AF3 continually referred to “naval watching” when discussing the supposed subjective aspects of the gospel verses the objective gospel.
Another example would be Michael Horton who said this: “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?” Compared to G. Paxton who said this: “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.”
Furthermore, A-OK prefaces the following statement in regard to the chart:
“By the way, I am speaking the language of Luther here; I am in no way indebted to the ‘Sonship theology’ that Dohse criticizes, nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.”
This is a shocking statement that unwittingly reveals O’Kelly’s ignorance in regard to the short history of the doctrine he embraces. Dr. John Miller is the father of Sonship theology and coined the mantra that is a hallmark of New Calvinism: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Luther didn’t coin that phrase—Miller did. Moreover, the present-day New Calvinist movement is replete with Miller’s spiritual children; namely, Tim Keller, David Powlison, Jerry Bridges, Darren Patrick, Mark Driscoll, and many others.
But now the most important points about the chart: First, it raises questions of integrity. Why does Keller and Powlison avoid the Sonship nomenclature among New Calvinist? You say, “They don’t” Then why do New Calvinist constantly espouse the phrase Miller invented, but yet they have never even heard of Sonship theology? O’Kelley said himself as one who is apparently qualified to write a response to the chart: “….nor have I ever heard of it prior to reading his letter.” I think this also adds to my aforementioned point as well—my chart hardly implies an accusation concerning a conspiracy.
Secondly, New Calvinists can no longer pretend that notable evangelicals have never had a problem with this doctrine. And to a more significant point, notable Calvinist themselves! And I don’t mean secondary disagreements, I mean, “This movement must be exposed and stopped.”
Thirdly, New Calvinist hacks can no longer go to conferences and pretend that all of the keynote speakers are parachuted in from Luther’s compound. Those days are over, and rightfully so.
Well, we have much more work to do on O’Kelly’s post. Lord willing, I will write part two tomorrow.
paul
Deja vu
“I may be told, in reply, that no one of course means to disparage ‘works’ as an essential part of a holy life. It would be well, however, to make this more plain than many seem to make it in these days.”
~JC Ryle
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
21 comments