Kevin DeYoung Bagged by the New Calvinist Slither Police, Part 2: Is Special K the Forerunner of the Great Slither?
Kevin DeYoung, hereafter affectionately referred to as “Special K” (SK), offered a response to officer Tullian Tchividjian’s (hereafter, OTT) “pushback” regarding an article he wrote that sounded too orthodox. You can’t blame him; after all, OTT is one bad dude. Anybody who is privy to OTT’s merciless hostile takeover of Coral Ridge would certainly hesitate to ruffle his feathers. Even James D. Kennedy’s daughter barely got out of there with her hairdo still intact.
In SK’s response to OTT’s response, he mentioned that he is on sabbatical to write a book on sanctification. Funny, just last week, a reader wrote an email to me—asking what I thought of sabbaticals. I told him they are a joke, with the exception of a pastor doing so to search the Scriptures for himself regarding serious theological issues of our day. Bingo, what’s more important in our day than the whole question of sanctification? Compare SK’s sabbatical with Piper’s last sabbatical where the purpose was to expunge several “species of idols” in his heart. The sabbatical was predetermined to be eight months, so we can only assume that his consultants, Tim Keller and Paul Tripp, identified the idols as those that can always be rectified by deep repentance in an eight-month period—just in time to return on January 1; because after all, like everything else, the new year was all about him. I almost went myself, video cam in-hand, to document the fawning (complete with glazed-over eyes, perspiration, and weak knees) of his Koolaid drinking followers waiting with bated breath as he walked up to the podium to pontificate his first Sunday morning message after his “sabbatical.”
But, back to SK. I found the interpretive questions he is asking himself during his sabbatical to be very interesting, and leads one to think that his church may be populated with a rare breed of Christians known as homo thinking sapiens:
1. Can the justified believer please God with his obedience? [Yes, du, Paul said, “it is our goal to please Him”]
2. Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins? [Yes, du, the opposite of “please” is “displease.”]
3. Is unbelief the root of every sin? [No—read about king David and Jonah] Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both trying to find a root sin? [No]
4. How are justification and sanctification related? [Read JC Ryle’s “Holiness”]
5. Can we obey God? [ SK, see John 14:15,16. Why is the Holy Spirit called our “helper”?]
6. Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we have done as we were commanded? [Yes, see 2Peter Chapter 1]
7. How does Scripture motivate us to obedience? [Start with Romans 5:13, then read verse 4 in the same chapter, and many other Scriptures like those. It’s NOT either the Holy Spirit or Scripture—it’s both.]
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)? [Not if they have a biblically trained conscience]
9. Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness and content with little progress in godliness)? [Ya think?]
10. What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with Christ and sanctification relate to justification? [SK: see the Australian Forum archives for a review of what you presently believe on that. It’s called the “centrality of the objective gospel.”]
But stop the presses! DeYoung wrote another article after he capitulated to the fearsome OTT entitled, “Is Sanctification By Faith Alone?” I will just say it plainly: dead on! With the exception of one whopper in the beginning of the piece, the rest of the post is a masterful articulation of true biblical sanctification. Is this the first time I have complimented a New Calvinist in the two-year history of this blog? Yes! In regard to the whopper: “Though it sounds very Protestant, it is not correct to say ‘sanctification is by faith alone.’” Uh, Special K, it has never been Protestant to say that, but hey, you’re going in the right direction.
This is major. DeYoung’s post is clearly in the face of New Calvinist doctrine, and the ten questions asked in the prior post are intimately connected to the conclusions stated in the latter. I can only pray that his healthy infatuation with JC Ryle will result in a positive outcome regarding the book he is writing on sanctification (and such a book is long overdue). In fact, Ryle’s “Holiness,” a book DeYoung often quotes, was written to refute false doctrines running amuck in Ryle’s day that were evil twins to present-day New Calvinism.
So, will SK take a hard stand and separate himself from the New Calvinism cartel? Or will he stay and be a lynchpin for the Great Slither? (See part 1): “Uh, ya, I agree with SK, absolutely! Yep, that’s been my position all along. In all of those other quotes of mine, I was talking about justification—not sanctification. But I will admit, I should have put a grammatical transition between the two—my bad dude.”
Or, if SK stays the course, will the New Calvinist throw him under the bus? Will the dreaded tweet come from the High Priest of New Calvinism?: “Bye, bye, Kevin DeYoung.”
paul
Kevin DeYoung Bagged by the New Calvinist Slither Police, Part1
Man! What a day for emails! Two weeks ago, Robert Brinsmead agreed to an interview via back and forth email. So, my morning started out with his return of my first ten questions. His answers were more help than I could have ever hoped for, and actually have some relevance here. This interrupted my intentions of returning two excellent emails I received from a couple of readers late last night that are very interesting as well. I couldn’t wait to get back from running errands in order to reply to the emails, but when I logged on, I noticed that I received another email with three links.
I began to read the first one, and thought, “Is this the beginning of the Great Slither?” What’s that? Well, New Calvinism (NC) is so nuanced that when (or if) God’s people catch on, I predict that many of the who’s who of NC will slowly slither back into orthodoxy and play dumb. Some keep themselves in a position where they can say, “Hey man, I only hung-out with those guys at conferences because they’re really cool—uh, I mean, nice guys. I never believed any of that stuff.” For example, Al Mohler already denies that he knows anybody who believes “we are sanctified by the same gospel that saved us” even though he is one of the “core four” of T4G. Nevertheless, I would welcome the Great Slither—am sure God would sort out all of the damage that has been done at a later date.
The first link was an article by Kevin DeYoung entitled, “Make Every Effort” ( http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/06/07/make-every-effort/ ) The article is eight paragraphs and the first four are hardcore orthodoxy. Many biblically accurate statements are made, but these capture the gist: “Count the letters carefully: effort is not a four letter word”; “It is the consistent witness of the New Testament that growth in godliness requires exertion on the part of the Christian.”
Of course, like all good New Calvinist, DeYoung then uses the last four paragraphs to “qualify” those statements. For example: “Obviously, even when we work, it is never meritorious. Our effort can never win God’s justifying favor. In fact, whatever we manage to work out is really what God purposed to work in us (Phil. 2:12-13; cf. Heb. 2:11). The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.”
Note that our (that would be us Christians) work is never meritorious, and cannot win God’s justifying favor. This statement subtly synthesizes justification and sanctification. As Christians, the legal declaration and imputed righteousness of Christ in justification is a onetime, done deal. It is also an act of God alone, and by faith alone. But our work in sanctification is to please God with the help of the Holy Spirit—not an attempt to be justified by our own merits, that’s impossible. But in the process, rewards and blessings are promised. DeYoung doesn’t qualify any of this in his statement, and for a reason. Note that he says, “The gospel is truly the A-Z of the Christian life.” The “gospel” as he uses it here concerns justification; so, if we can’t work in justification, and the gospel is the “A-Z” of the Christian life, how can we rightfully work in the sanctification process without doing violence to justification? This statement contradicts everything he says in the first four paragraphs. What DeYoung really means by the “effort” he talks about in the first four paragraphs is reflected in the title of a follow-up article: “Gospel-Driven Effort.” That’s effort driven by the gospel; in other words, “Christians live by the same gospel that saved us,” and works (they rarely say “our works”) flow from that. I address this fundamental error of sanctification by justification here: http://wp.me/pmd7S-Jh .
All in all, DeYoung’s article was a typical nuanced, double-speaking masterpiece. I was literally close to the monitor, sipping my McDonalds coffee, and muttering, “Awesome— #%@* this guy’s good, maybe the best I’ve seen yet.” Yes, this is the kind of article people send me with accusations that I “slander” New Calvinist: “See, he believes in exertion in the sanctification process—pull it down right now! Pull it down!” But, whose exertion? And exertion in what? Believing and deep repentance only? An exertion that has no moral value without joy?
No, no, this article was not slithering. But the New Calvinist Slither Police wanted to make sure. Officer Tullian Tchividjian (TT) is on the case, calling out DeYoung for sounding too orthodox. TT filed the following police report here:
( http://www.christianpost.com/news/work-hard-but-in-which-direction-51115/ ).
DeYoung himself acknowledged in his follow-up article that TT wrote the article to “pushback” against what he wrote. TT’s article was an unabashed reaffirmation to the Koolaid drinking faithful that all is well.
TT’s article was full of the more blatant forms of what DeYoung said NC isn’t in his first article: “let go and let God” theology. Despite TT’s deceptive affirmations throughout the article, at one point he says this: “Many conclude that justification is step one and that sanctification is step two and that once we get to step two there’s no reason to go back to step one. Sanctification, in other words, is commonly understood as progress beyond the initial step of justification. But while justification and sanctification are to be clearly separated theologically, the Bible won’t allow us to separate them essentially and functionally.” Got that? They are theologically separate, but not functionally separate. Huh? Nevertheless, again, this contradicts TT’s claim that he believes in effort being exerted by believers in the sanctification process. As a matter of fact, he clarifies what NC are really talking about when they speak of hard work: “Sanctification is the hard work of going back to the certainty of our already secured pardon in Christ and hitting the refresh button over and over,” and, “It is in this context that I’ve said before how sanctification is the hard work of getting used to our justification.” Got that? Let there be no doubt: this is the NC idea of hard work in the sanctification process; be not deceived.
Furthermore, TT puts the icing on the cake by saying the following: “Christ’s subjective work in us is his constantly driving us back to the reality of his objective work for us. Sanctification feeds on justification, not the other way around.” This statement should give you a clue as to who NC think is really doing the work, but not only that, if sanctification “feeds on justification,” one only needs to remember that justification is by faith alone apart from works. In future posts, based on my correspondence with Robert Brinsmead, I will be illustrating how the centrality of the objective gospel (reread TT’s quote above) created by the Australian Forum is the embryo from which NC has developed into what it is today.
Can Kevin DeYoung be Saved From the Dark Side?
DeYoung’s response to TT’s report was truly pathetic. It is a tortured exercise in not appearing as one corrected, while trying to avoid a possible indictment by the NC district attorney. Not only that, in his introduction, he shares the deep subjects he will be considering while on his forthcoming sabbatical (go figure, another NC taking a sabbatical):
- Can the justified believer please God with his obedience?
- Is the justified believer displeasing to God in some way when he sins?
- Is unbelief the root of every sin? Or is it pride? Or idolatry? Should we even both trying to find a root sin?
- How are justification and sanctification related?
- Can we obey God?
- Can we feel confident about our obedience, not in a justifying way but that we have done as we were commanded?
- How does Scripture motivate us to obedience?
- 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)?
- Or are most Christians too easy on themselves (thinking nothing of holiness and content with little progress in godliness)?
- What is the role of union with Christ in sanctification? And how do union with Christ and sanctification relate to justification?
Any believer worth their salt should know the answers to those questions; and this guy is one of the NC big dogs? He needs a sabbatical to figure out those questions?! And didn’t he just answer most of those questions in his first and second articles? Could this be a cry for help? Could it be a ploy? Is he going to skip bail?
Paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 5: Ellen White Was A New Calvinist Momma
“White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called ‘deep repentance,’ was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, ‘deep repentance.’”
As I study the Australian Forum (AF) archives to first establish that their theology is exactly the same as contemporary New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology (NCGSS), the task is becoming a real yawner. Monday, I will be writing a post on the AF version of “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” The whole indicative/imperative thing is a NCGSS staple. Further articles will be a mopping up of comparisons—almost a boring formality. I will also note a comparison of the AF’s version of Michael Horton’s Doctrine to Doxology.
As I noted previously, the AF three are Robert Brinsmead, G. Paxton, and G. Goldsworthy. Brinsmead was excommunicated from the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (SDA) which was founded by Ellen G. White. Though Brinsmead was trying to reform SDA, the AF endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings.
And why not? According to reviews written by the AF, White (hereafter “NCM”) had much in common with contemporary New Calvinism. First, NCM believed that sanctification was through justification alone. Or, ‘The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.” Paxton had this to say while reiterating NCM’s belifs:
“Justification is not a filling station that is passed but once, or a one-time event which is followed by sanctification—with perhaps an occasional looking back to justification. This theology [White’s] will not allow that. Justification and sanctification must be kept together. One blessing is the obverse side of the other. Justification feeds sanctification, and sanctification must continually return to justification” ( “The Theology of Ellen G. White: Sanctification” Present Truth Magazine [prim. ref.]).
Here is how Tullian Tchividjian, a New Calvinist, stated it:
“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.”
It was the AF’s contention (it was mostly Paxton who wrote on behalf of the Forum) that because of people’s lack of understanding in regard to what NCM believed—there are many misconceptions accordingly. In their article on NCM’s view on sanctification, they make the case that what she wrote must be seen through her basic prism on the subject of sanctification (which is very similar to NCGSS):
”Contradictions? Paradoxes? That is for the reader to judge, but he who does not recognize (or refuses to recognize) these factors in Mrs. White is like the man who comes to the United States, takes a look around Los Angeles, and is satisfied that America boils down to smog and freeways” (prim. ref.).
NCM, like NCGSS advocates, was also a proponent of sanctification being limited to the same elements of justification—faith and repentance only: “There is no such thing as going beyond repentance, beyond the need of forgiveness and justification. To reach up in faith for acceptance with God is not one act in a lifetime. That no point in our experience can we dispense with the assistance of that which enables us to make the first start” (prim. ref.).
White, like many New Calvinist of our day, believed that faith alone, and what she called “deep repentance,” was the twofold operating dynamic of sanctification. In fact, Ellen White may have actually coined the phrase, “deep repentance.” She believed that growth in sanctification depended on a contemplation of Christ and His works in comparison to our own inability to keep the law. As we (supposedly) gaze on Christ in the Scriptures, we become more, and more aware of our own sinfulness, and this (supposedly) fosters a deeper, and deeper dependence on Christ while nurturing humbleness. She believed that this continual partaking in deep repentance changes us from “glory to glory.” Sound familiar? In relationship to the law—her view was very positive. The law did two things: on the one hand, it is a glorious testimony as to what Christ obeyed for us—making us thankful. On the other hand, it shows us what we are unable to do—driving us back to the cross with pleas for mercy. I call this law positive and law negative. NCGSS advocates refer to it as “using the law lawfully.” The following are quotes from the same article that reference what I have proposed above:
“Here is the paradox of joy and sorrow. ‘The deepest joy of heart comes from the deepest humiliation.’(79) Sanctification therefore means progress in two directions. ‘The closer you come to Jesus, the more faulty you will appear in your own eyes; for your vision will be clearer, and your imperfections will be seen in broad and distinct contrast to His perfect nature.’(80) ‘At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen.’(81) ‘The more our sense of need drives us to Him [Christ] and to the word of God, the more exalted views we shall have of His character, and the more fully we shall reflect His image.’82 “ (footnotes supplied by Forum: 79; 3T 459, 80; SC 64, 81; AA 561, 82; SC 65 [ key to abbreviations: http://goo.gl/y8Kfj ]).
“Brethren and sisters, it is by beholding that we become changed. By dwelling upon the love of God and our Saviour, by contemplating the perfection of the divine character and claiming the righteousness of Christ as ours by faith, we are to be transformed into the same image” (“Signs of the Times” pages 743-745).
“The justified believer, being no longer under the law’s condemnation, nor under it as a covenant of works, has a new attitude toward the law. He delights in it after the inward man, he wants to be perfect, but he mourns because he falls so far short of it.The law thus reminds him of how he must continue to hide his lack of perfection in Christ.Thus the believer always sees himself a sinner and counts himself vile….” (SL 81, DA 519, AA 561).
“The sanctification of the soul is accomplished through steadfastly beholding Him [Christ] by faith. . . .”(21) “Our faith increases by beholding Jesus. . . .”(22) “Our greatest need is faith. . . .”(23) It would not be difficult to make a good case for the life of faith being the dynamic of sanctification, in real Luther style” (21; 6BC 1117, 22; HP 127, 23; 7T 211).
“So will it be with all who behold Christ. The nearer we come to Jesus, and the more clearly we discern the purity of His character, the more clearly shall we see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and the less shall we feel like exalting ourselves. There will be a continual, earnest, heartbreaking confession of sin and humbling of the heart before Him. At every advance step in our Christian experience our repentance will deepen” (“Acts of the Apostles” 560, 561).
“Law and gospel, deep repentance and joyous faith, sinful and righteous, must always be kept together in Christian existence” (Paxton’s reiteration).
One may compare these quotes with the likes of John Piper:
“What Then Shall Those Who Are Justified Do with the Law of Moses? Read it and meditate on it as those who are dead to it as the ground of your justification and the power of your sanctification. Read it and meditate on it as those for whom Christ is your righteousness and Christ is your sanctification. Which means read and mediate on it to know Christ better and to treasure him more. Christ and the Father are one (John 10:30; 14:9). So to know the God of the Old Testament is to know Christ. The more you see his glory and treasure his worth, the more you will be changed into his likeness (2 Corinthians 3:17-18)” (“How to Use the Law of God Lawfully” Desiring God Ministries).
“Beholding is a way of becoming” (“The Pleasures Of God” p. 17).
“Along with deep repentance, Scripture calls us to a faith that rests and feeds upon the living Christ. He fills us with himself through the person of the Holy Spirit and we are transformed by faith” (Paul David Tripp, “How People Change” p. 28).
Like new Calvinist, White’s sanctification by justification also enabled her to speak in orthodox terms without contradicting her theology. For instance:
“Then again, one can make a good case out of union with Christ or the reception of the Holy Spirit as being the theme of Mrs. White’s concept of the Christian life. Here she is a quietist, telling us that the Christian life is a life of trust and restfulness. There she is a full-blooded activist, urging the reader to action, telling him that the Christian life is a fight, a battle, a march, that he must steel every nerve and fiber in what promises to be ‘slow, toilsome steps’ toward perfection.”
Right. Because when she speaks of “toilsome steps,” she is either speaking of toiling in the narrow endeavor of faith/deep repentance ONLY, or the results of that which leads to Christ’s toiling—NOT ours, or both. Paul Tripp does the same thing in “How People Change” on page 6:
“Rather, He calls us to a life of constant work, constant growth, and constant confession and repentance.”
Tripp, like NCM, is not talking about work by us in a sanctification that is many faceted, but work in “confession and repentance” only, and it is not certain whether the “work” is that of Christ that supposedly results from deep repentance, or the prior. Hence, NCGSS doctrine makes this kind of deceptive doublespeak possible, while appearing orthodox.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment