Let’s Not Forget That Sonship / Gospel Sanctification / New Calvinism Is Not a Theological Discussion, But a Life Discussion
I was recently sent a link for an article written for the Reformation 21 blog by William B. Evans. The article was a very apt articulation of Sonship theology in regard to showing its error. In the first paragraph, he cites one of the contemporary fathers of intestinal fortitude, Jason Hood, who has challenged New Calvinism by coining the phrase, “sanctification by justification.” Evans mentioned him in conjunction with Hood challenging Tullian Tchividjian’s assertion that being called an antinomian validates one’s gospel ministry. Welcome to our day. A day in which having a goal of being called an antinomian doesn’t necessarily mean you’re an antinomian. Apparently, when the apostles predicted there would be “many” false teachers in the last days, they never saw New Calvinism coming and the ushering in of “many” Tchividjian like “reformers” instead.
Tchividjian, supposedly an example of one of the worst Sonship offenders, seemed to be the subject of Evans’ post (Again, Evans did a great job of exposing the doctrine’s serious error and the post should be read by all: http://goo.gl/9AgD7 ). After summarizing Hood’s contention, he moved on to the back and forth between Tchividjian and New Calvinist Kevin DeYoung. Apparently, DeYoung thinks the movement may come across as thinking that “effort” is a four-letter word. Actually, “obey” is the word that DeYoung thinks has four letters, and he never mentioned any specific applications for “effort.” Nevertheless, Evans rightly points out that DeYoung presented good arguments for an overly passive approach to sanctification. But in the third and final exchange between the two New Calvinists, and unlike Hood in his follow-up exchanges, DeYoung clearly vacillated and patched things up with Tchividjian.
Which now brings me to my point. Evans cites DeYoung as saying the following: “In this context DeYoung the pastor speaks of those in the church ‘who are confused, wondering why sanctification isn’t automatically flowing from their heartfelt commitment to gospel-drenched justification.’” In other words, DeYoung knows the ramifications, but will not separate himself from the New Calvinist movement. Evans also wrote the following: “In other words, the questions raised in these blog exchanges are important; the contrast in views is rather stark, and the time is ripe for further discussion.” I like his use of the word “stark,” but further “discussion”?
This issue needs way more than discussion! Tchividjian is representative of the New Calvinist perspective, and with it the belief that views similar to the ones Hood espoused are a false gospel, leading to the loss of justification—being interpreted: your not saved. Want proof? Well, Evans mentioned that the issue needs to be further engaged because of the involvement of theological heavy-weights like Michael Horton, so I will quote him to make my point:
“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” (p. 62 Christless Christianity [emphasis mine]).
This dastardly belief among New Calvinist often leads to marriages in counseling situations being judged as mixed because one spouse will not accept Sonship theology. Do you think the “stark” contrast in these two theologies could cause problems in a marriage? And once in counseling, how much more damage will be done when one spouse is declared an unbeliever? The theology causes marriage problems, then the counseling formed by the theology makes the problem worse! Furthermore, change by putting off unbiblical wisdom and putting on biblical wisdom via obedience will not be the emphasis of this counseling, but rather a “beholding as a way of becoming.” It’s a recipe for disaster! How many spiritually maimed Christians are there who are told that the primary remedy is preaching the gospel to themselves everyday? Discussion? What the….are you kidding me?
Everybody admits this doctrine is causing confusion among Christians—even some New Calvinist themselves. That fact is talked about like it’s just no big deal. Well, tell Christ it’s no big deal, but don’t take me with you—just thinking about it makes me shudder. In addition, bad theology always profoundly effects the lives of Christians. Therefore, theological discussions of this magnitude should always have teeth, and if Tullian Tchividjian, or Michael Horton, or Al Mohler, or John Piper, or Mark Devers, or Tim Keller, or David Powlison, or Jerry Bridges, or DA Carson, or John MacArthur, or anyone else won’t repent, let them be treated like publicans and tax collectors. We are either in the ministry for people or to keep the peace with those obsessed with visions of grandeur. Discussion? Yes. But if necessary, separation also.
paul
The Tchividjian Wheel
“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.”
~ Tullian Tchividjian
“The picture is that of a great wheel with its mighty hub and the
various doctrinal spokes radiating out from that hub ”
~ G. Paxton, forefather of New Calvinism
Comments by “Karen” and “Jill” Capture the Fundamentals of the New Calvinist Lie and its Life Formula
Hardly anything that comes out of New Calvinism is the truth. I was reminded of this as I read a recent comment by “Karen” on the Michael Horton Trilogy post. See no law, hear no law, speak no law:
In the comment, Karen regurgitates the usual New Calvinist canned gospel along with the usual communication techniques that attempt to cover for a lack of validity; and attempts to demean those who are not on the cutting edge of the “New Reformation.” Here is the comment:
“You obviously haven’t listened to Horton on his White Horse Inn broadcasts, where he and the panel are always admonishing the church to preach the Law AND the Gospel. One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law, and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification. Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ” . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law). But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
I. Communication
The first thing we see in Karen’s comment under “communication” is the New Calvinist (NC) prerequisite for those who are not followers of NC. You have to read EVERY book any particular NC has written in order to be qualified to criticize them. This is a technique often used to defend John Piper who has written about 600 books on joy. He is the spiritual counterpart to Anne McCaffrey who wrote the mystical “Pern” series, and trust me, she couldn’t hold a candle to the first pope of NC, John Piper. Of course, this sets a standard not even foisted upon Holy Writ—the idea that you have to read the whole Bible to understand any of it. But as the fawning, Koolaid drinking writers of the Pyro blog note, “To know Piper is to understand Piper”(gag).
The second thing we see under communication is the misrepresentation of terms. Yes, Horton and the White Horse Inn gang constantly talk about law and gospel, but what they mean by those terms are not orthodox. Horton believes that the purpose of the law is to drive Christians to despair so that they will be totally dependant on Christ. Like Paul David Tripp, he also believes that any effort on our part to keep the law only breeds self righteousness. In “Another Gospel,” there will be a whole chapter dedicated to NC phraseology.
The third element in NC communication is intimidation: “You obviously haven’t…,” and “One must….” etc. Ever heard the one about what was written in the preacher’s sermon notes? “Point weak—pound pulpit here.” This works particularly well for Piper who is also helped by this because he looks like Yoda’s big brother.
II. New Calvinist Doctrine
1. The Synthesis of Justification and Sanctification.
The first element of NC doctrine can be seen in Karen’s statement as follows: “One must recognize the Law’s demands before one can appreciate the fact that we are not capable of achieving the righteous requirements of the Law,…” The goal of a believer is not to achieve righteousness for justification; that is a onetime legal declaration by God that happens when we believe. Christians seek to obey the law because “we make it our goal to please him” as colaborers with God in sanctification (2Cor. 5:9, 1Cor. 3:9, 1Thess. 3:2).
2. The Total Depravity of the Saints.
If the law has the same role in the lives of unbelievers as it does for believers, this logically speaks of ability being the same. In fact, Horton plainly writes in Christless Christianity, page 62, that justification (or, “gospel”) gives life to unbelievers in the same way that it gives life to believers when they revisit the gospel “afresh.” Horton also states on the same page that any other application besides the gospel in the Christian life results in the loss of salvation.
3. Denial of the New Birth.
Obviously, if our ability to obey the law is no more than that of an unbeliever, one must ask: “What about Christians being “new creatures”? That’s easy, NC deny the significance of the new birth. In the cradle of New Calvinism, Robert Brinsmead’s Australian Forum (along with G. Paxton and G. Goldsworthy [the Australian 3 or “A3”]), concurred that there is a new birth, but that lending significance to that fact would eclipse the preeminence of the gospel and the works of Jesus Christ. Example: yes, it’s true that there are planets that are 300 light years away from us, but what is the significance of them when discussing the Sun? Rick Holland uses this same hermeneutical logic in his book, “Uneclipsing The Son” to promote the NC doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. Consider this side by side comparison of quotes from G. Paxton and Michael Horton:
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.”
Horton: “Is the ‘Good News’ no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own
‘Spirit-filled’ life?”
4. The Obedient Life of Christ as Part of the Atonement.
Known as the imputed active obedience of Christ, it adds the obedience that Christ practiced during His incarnation to our account along with righteousness. Therefore, active obedience is imputed to us, and any attempt on our part to obey is a denial of a key part of the atonement. I highly recommend pastor Terry Rayburn’s sound refutation of this doctrine here (5 Part series):
http://grace-for-life.blogspot.com/2011/03/active-obedience-imputation-is-not.html
Karen’s reflection of this doctrine can be seen in this statement: “….and therefore we NEED the Savior, who lived a perfectly righteous life which is imputed to my account at the point of justification.”
5. The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event.
Karen says: “Horton’s cry to the church is not to abandon the imperatives of Scripture (those lists of godly behaviors in Paul’s epistles), but to practice them in light of the indicatives (what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf). Perfect case in point: Phil. 2:12 and 13 — ‘ . . . work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.’ Most of Paul’s epistles are indicative heavy up front (Gospel) and imperative heavy following (Law).”
This is the NC teaching that the Bible demonstrates contemplation on the gospel as the key to spiritual growth by a supposed grammatical pattern that always displays the works of Christ/gospel (indicative) prior to commands (imperative). This is hardly a consistent pattern throughout Scripture. Don’t be fooled by Karen’s typical NC nuanced doublespeak. She seems to be saying that our good works are a result of being saved by Christ, but she is really toeing the classic NC line that Christ is obeying for us because His obedience was imputed to us through the atonement. Contemplating the gospel results in an effortless display of His obedience—not ours. This can be seen in this part of her statement: “(what Christ has already accomplished on our behalf).” Obviously, if Christ has already “accomplished” IT, there is nothing more for us to “accomplish.” Notice that in her citation of Phil. 2:12,13, both God and believer “work,” but her implication is: go ahead and do what Jesus did and it will be effortless because he already accomplished it. So, any works in our OWN effort is not of Christ because when it is Him doing it, it doesn’t require our effort. If you doubt that’s the take, consider this statement by “Jill” whom I was having a discussion with last night:
“When Christ lives in us, everything is effortless because it is Christ living in us doing it all through us. When we have to work in our own strength to please God, we know that we are still bound by the law.”
In Jill’s statement, all the elements of what we are discussing here can be seen.
However, we must remember: like the new birth, the will to obey God is a gift, but with all gifts, we still possess it (new creatureship and the will) regardless of the fact that it is a gift. Therefore, we are enabled to obey—have the will to obey (which does not imply that we will always feel like the will is there), and it is really us obeying/working.
6. The Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law and look how angry God was with them, so let that be a lesson to you; if you try to keep the law, your nothing but a Pharisee. No, no, even though the Pharisees were really, really good at keeping the law, you need a righteousness that exceeds the righteousness they had—the righteousness of Christ that comes by your non-effort which shows your faith.
This worn out, straw man eating a red herring argument used often by NC can be seen in these words by Karen: “But the Good News is what keeps us from becoming frustrated in our failure to attain the righteousness that “exceeds that of the pharisees” (Matt. 5:20).”
Again, pleasing Christ, and putting on the new creature while putting off the old, is not an attempt to secure justification as Karen suggests. And, Christ was saying the exact opposite of what NC say He is saying in Matthew 5:20. Because the Pharisees were actually antinomian law-breakers of the worse sort, Christ was saying that your life better look a whole bunch better than theirs. Christ’s beef with the Pharisees was not their supposed attempt/efforts to apply the truth to their life, but the fact that they distorted the law with their traditions, and thereby making the law “void” ( Matthew 15:6 ESV). This fact can also be clearly seen in the context of Matthew 5. The Pharisees were the ones who “relaxed” the law and taught others to do the same.
7. By attempting to keep the law, the Pharisees were only cleaning the outside of the cup and not truly dealing with the heart (Matthew 23:25-28).
Karen doesn’t touch on this, but it is the matching bookend of NC’s Pharisee angle, so I present it here as a bonus point. Supposedly, any effort on our part to keep the law only concerns the outer person. We supposedly change from the inside out by contemplating the gospel with the result being an outer manifestation of Christ’s obedience, not ours. But again, that is a distortion of what Christ was really saying. Christ was saying that outer obedience is always preceded by inner obedience, not contemplative spirituality:
“So you alsooutwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full ofhypocrisy and lawlessness.”
The word for “lawlessness” in this passage is “anomia” which means “without the law” or “anti-law” or “against the law.” The Pharisees were disobedient in regard to their inner life (thinking, reasoning, knowledge, etc). They were law-breakers on the inside and the outside both. Apparently, one of the primary reasons God destroyed mankind except for Noah’s family was: “And Jehovah saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
III. Conclusion
Despite the fact that NC are masters of nuance and double speak, their formula for life is simply this: Living the Christian life is an effortless endeavor that only seeks to display the works of Christ and the gospel that flow from “worship” and spiritual contemplation. It is a formula that is wreaking havoc on Christian families and will continue to do so. And although most Christians today deny this doctrine based on terminology, it is how they function in real life. This can be easily demonstrated. When one goes to college, he/she will have to labor in various ways to eventually earn a degree. Not only that, they will have to learn something NEW in every class they attend every day in order to obtain a grade that illustrates that they have the knowledge necessary to perform a trade. That’s college—not sanctification, but yet, how many Christians have that attitude about what’s necessarily for the Christian life? And regardless of the fact that the apostle Paul said: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth,” Christian leaders insist that believers make the ABC’s of Christianity the A-Z.
paul
The Significance of Kevin DeYoung’s Top Ten
“However, it is my hope that [DeYoung] will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our ‘sanctification tool belt,’ that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.”
“One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.”
“Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt; they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them.”
Kevin DeYoung, hereafter, “Special K” (SK), recently wrote a third post
( http://shar.es/HeU1Q ) clarifying his position on sanctification. SK wrote a prior post
( http://shar.es/HeU3w ) which was a capitulation to Tullian Tchividjian who responded to his first post on the same subject. In the second post, SK listed ten interpretive questions that he is considering while on a sabbatical for the purpose of writing a book on sanctification. The significance of these ten questions should not be missed. Those ten questions strike at the heart of New Calvinism, and it would seem that in light of his latest post, he has answered those questions in a way that is not favorable to New Calvinism. In fact, it almost seems like the latest post is in your face when compared to his response to Tchividjian’s “pushback” regarding his first post which only hinted of orthodoxy to begin with. The significance of these ten questions is the following:
1. Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
SK didn’t pull these questions out of the clouds. This question has to be asked because New Calvinist (NC) teach that God cannot be anymore pleased with us than He already is in Jesus Christ (that’s true in regard to justification). The “justified” believer, as opposed to simply, “believer” is not worded that way for no reason. Supposedly, to admit that there is something we can do to please God as believers is to take away from the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Also, remember that the core beliefs of New Calvinism came from the Australian Forum, and their doctrine is primarily driven by the centrality of the objective gospel. In other words, the gospel is something outside of us, not inside (subjective). Inside considerations (like anything we would do [subjective]) cannot “eclipse” anything Christ has done (note: Rick Holland’s “Uneclipsing The Son” will soon be available for purchase).
2. Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
This question is simply the other side of number one. New Calvinist teach that God cannot be displeased with us anymore than he can be displeased with Christ, and for the same reasons that we cannot do anything to gain more favor with God than we already have in Christ. Again, it’s not about us (subjective) and how the supposed displeasure of God would make us feel (subjective). SK seems to have answered this question for himself in the third post: “But God also motivates us by a sense of duty, by gratitude, by threats, by promises, and by the fear of the Lord.” And by the way, to NC, this statement is barely less than blaspheme.
3. Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both
trying to find a root sin?
Obviously, SK is questioning one of the four major tenets of NC: Theology of the Heart. This theology was added to NC via Sonship Theology and David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which was articulated in Paul Tripp’s “How People Change”
What Jonah knew and believed about God is what caused him to rebel. He knew God was a merciful God and would probably save the Ninevites, whom Jonah hated. That’s why he didn’t want to go there. In Jonah’s case, it was attitude, bad thinking, and a refusal to obey, not unbelief. It is evident in the book that Jonah had tremendous faith in God. But NC must make all issues in sanctification the same as justification which is primarily by faith only; so, it stands to reason that they have to make all sin issues in sanctification a belief issue. The NC position on this question is no better defended than in Tripp’s book. SK needs to read “How People Change” followed by the Donn Arms book review of HPC ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-EC ).
4. How are justification and sanctification related?
I think this question is now rightly, for the most part, answered by SK’s third post. I only take exception to a few statements thereof, but here is one: “Are we sanctified by remembering our justification? Yes.” SK is saying that contemplating our justification is still a viable way to grow spiritually, but he is presenting it as another tool “in our tool belt” rather than the only discipline from which all other duties flow (Dr. Peter Masters’ contention regarding Piper). However, it is my hope that SK will realize that as we grow spiritually using everything in our sanctification tool belt, that we become increasingly aware of what we have been saved from, and hence, a deeper appreciation of our original salvation.
5. Can we obey God?
This speaks to the NC doctrine of the total depravity of the saints. Again, most definitely, this originated with the Australian Forum who denied the new birth, or being born again. Michael Horton also denies the significance of the new birth and takes his cue from the Forum on that issue.
6. Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we
have done as we were commanded?
This clearly speaks to the NC belief that obedience in sanctification is synonymous with an attempt to be justified. Hence, asked another way: “Is the totally depraved believer really able to obey and know that it is legitimate obedience that pleases God?” One can only pray that DeYoung will free himself completely from the insanity that creates such questions.
7. How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
By describing the tools in our tool belt, not the NC belief that the Bible is only a tool for contemplating the gospel.
8. Are most Christians too hard on themselves (thinking they are filthy scum when
they actually walk with the Lord in a way that pleases him)?
No Kevin. Many Christians are walking in violation of their conscience because of what New Calvinism teaches. Whenever New Calvinist followers feel guilty, they don’t check their Holy Spirit tool belt, they are rather taught to contemplate the gospel that saved them. My brother—please flee—perhaps there is not too much blood on your hands.
9. Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness
and content with little progress in godliness)?
Of course they are! They are taught that they cannot be a part of the progress!
10. What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with
Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
It’s the antithesis of the Forum’s view that formed New Calvinism: “The centrality of the objective gospel.”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment