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
By Request: A Summary Of The New Calvinist Genealogy Chart; Part 1 / Introduction
The contemporary history of New Calvinism begins with Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens. They are the fathers of New Calvinism. Between my interview with Brinsmead and an informal document written by Zens I found on the internet—this is apparent. Brinsmead started a project called the Australian Forum (he wanted me to note that it was one of many projects that focused on certain subjects) that sought to articulate a gospel-centered sanctification into a unified, consistent systematic theology. One of the major considerations was a focus on covenant theology in relationship to this endeavor. Jon Zens is the father of New Covenant Theology, but it is clear that Brinsmead had a major influence in the formulation of that doctrine. All of this took place in the 70’s. So, New Calvinism has been around for about 35 years in various forms. It is primarily based on the Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). COG is the very heart of New Calvinism. Though NC has many different expressions, this doctrine is the heartbeat that drives it.
The Forum was having a significant impact on two spheres of Christianity in the 70’s and early 80’s; namely, Reformed Baptist and Westminster Seminary. Zens was a Reformed Baptist and also a student at Westminster. Zens taught a Sunday School class where his ideas on New Testament ethics were being presented, and Westminster students attended those studies. Michael Horton was infatuated with the Forum’s teachings, and COG can be seen in many of his teachings throughout his career. Keep in mind, the Forum’s magazine, Present Truth, and later, Verdict, according to Zens, had the largest readership among all Evangelical publications at that time. Apparently, Zens was initially introduced to the Forum by receiving Present Truth while he was a student at Westminster, and eventually formed a close relationship with Brinsmead. Also, G. Goldsworthy’s involvement in the Forum as one the AF three is one of the interesting the top is the same as the bottom in the genealogy chart. Till this day, the Goldsworthy Trilogy is a mainstay of New Calvinism’s Gospel Theology. Again, at the very heart of Goldsworthy’s Trilogy is COG. Goldsworthy was close to Brinsmead, and Brinsmead learned his Hebrew skills from Goldsworthy.
Zens, with the help of several men who are now the who’s who of New Covenant Theology while Zens is in the background (probably because of his connections with Brinsmead), attempted to propagate the doctrine, yet unnamed, via the Baptist Reformation Review . Zens received a very zealous contention from other Reformed Baptist such as Walter Chantry. At that time, Brinsmead wrote several articles defending Zens’ doctrine in the BRR. According to Zens:
“A sort of (unintended) [I doubt that] culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom [a book Chantry wrote to contend against COG, though he saw it as neo-antinomianism, which is also a correct assertion] and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel [“NT approach to law and gospel” is a present-day NC mantra] was stated forcefully by RDB:
‘[Paul’s] appeals on how to live are made on the basis of what God has done for us in Christ. It is in view of God’s gospel mercies that we are to present our lives as a living sacrifice to God (Rom.12:1-3) . . . . Paul virtually never appeals to the law – ‘Thou shalt not.’ When he demands certain behavior of the church, he appeals instead to the holy history of Christ . . . and from that stand point then makes his ethical appeal.’”
Note here, and this is very important: the Forum’s the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event can be seen in Brinsmead’s statement cited by Zens above, which is a pillar of Gospel Sanctification till this day, and originated in COG doctrine by the AF. Chantry and others effectively beat COG within an inch of its life, and the doctrine, coined by Zens one year later as “New Covenant Theology” (in 1981), continued on in a meager existence among Continental Baptist. Most likely, John Piper was introduced to COG among Reformed Baptist and was probably well aware of the controversy. The wherewithal of his injection of Christian Hedonism into the movement is sketchy at this time and needs extensive investigation which I will do Lord willing.
Meanwhile, COG was finding new life at Westminster Seminary. In fact, Brinsmead and the Forum met with the Westminster faculty in the I think early 80’s, I will add references to this summary later. Brinsmead remembers little about the meeting other than he noted that the faculty served pork to him and the other forum members which he suspected was deliberate due to the Forum’s connection with Adventism. I informed him that it was deliberate because they were incited to do so by Jay Adams (a faculty member at the time) who was not a happy camper that the meeting took place. Brinsmead stated that one individual present at the meeting seemed to be an “elder statesman” of Westminster. I’m guessing it was Edmund Clowney.
At this point, COG, as the face of the AF disappears, leaving behind its remnants with Continental Baptist because Robert Brinsmead departed from orthodox Christianity all together. But the heart of COG incited a new movement begun by Westminster professor John “Jack” Miller called “Sonship Theology.” Again, COG met stiff resistance in Presbyterian circles under the new name of Sonship. Leading the charge was Dr. Jay Adams who also knew Jack Miller personally. His contention against Sonship is well documented in his book, “Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation Of The Sonship Discipleship Course.” Unfortunately, the book is out of print. One may well note: Some big dogs of the present-day New Calvinists movement; specifically, Tim Keller and David Powlison, were disciples of Jack Miller and his Sonship program. Tim Keller’s propagation of Sonship is well known and documented. At a conference conducted at John Piper’s church while Piper was on sabbatical, Powlison specifically cited Miller as his “mentor” and ridiculed Adams for criticizing Miller while failing to mention that the “criticism” was in the form of a book—which I am sure slipped his mind. Miller is the one who coined the phrase often aped by Jerry Bridges: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Funny, while an elder at a reformed church in the mid-nineties, I heard Jerry Bridges say that without realizing what a profound effect that little phrase would have on my life ten years later.
But with COG again under heavy fire and the Sonship coat of arms being shot full of holes, “Sonship” was replaced with “gospel,” ie., “gospel-driven” this, and “gospel-centered” that. The movement was now underground, but steadily growing while avoiding labels like the plague. Take note: for almost ten years between 2000 and 2009, the movement was nameless. The name “New Calvinism” is very recent and was attached because movements that become massive cannot avoid a label. Meanwhile, David Powlison had been busy for a number of years integrating Jack Miller’s form of COG into “biblical counseling” through his Dynamics of Biblical Change which became the basis for biblical counseling at Westminser Seminary. Hence, different players were at work making COG relevant to different areas of Christian theology and life that were important to them in making COG work. Brinsmead conceived the primary foundation (with other Reformed elements not unique with him—what he called “jewels” that contributed to what was important to him) and helped Zens formulate the covenant theology. Goldsworthy integrated COG into hermeneutics and eschatology with a little bit of Gabler and Vos mixed in for good measure. Piper contributed to the experience / emotional aspect, and Powlison was paramount in his contribution to the life application part; otherwise, COG would be more vulnerable to its unbiblical passivity in the sanctification process.
Unbeknown to many in the biblical counseling movement, the integration of COG into biblical counseling, primarily in David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart that came out of Westminster’s DBC, was at the core of tensions between NANC and CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster Seminary (other than the integration of Psychology as well, but COG deserves infamous merit there as well). Eventually, CCEF’s influence totally infected NANC with the disease, and NANC advocates act as if the cupbearer, upon realizing he has tested a deadly cup, should use his last words to compliment the superb taste of the drink. Eventually, disciples of David Powlison; Paul David Trip and Timothy Lane, wrote a book that articulated COG’s supposed life application in the book, How People Change. The centrality of the objective gospel (COG) and all of its elements are glaringly obvious in the book—almost as if it was written by Robert Brinsmead himself.
Starting in, or about 2004, Christians began to realize something was wrong, but because the movement had no label, other than, “gospel” (and who is going to diss the “gospel”?), many simply just remained confused as to what this was all about. However, I was in a unique situation at the time. I was in a church that was on the cutting edge of the movement for many reasons. In NANC’s glory days, this church was a training center for biblical counselors. The church was eventually infected by COG via CCEF’s influence over NANC, and Reformed Baptists who joined the same afoermentioned church who were of the Jon Zens persuasion. Once I knew something didn’t smell right, I spent several months researching and interacting with the elders of that church. Their story, which of course I didn’t buy, was that COG has been historically true all along, and a Reformation was afoot. Eventually, after hundreds of hours of conversation / debate with these elders and my own research, I named the movement “Gospel Sanctification” and started a blog called the “Berean Call” which later became PPT. Initially, I thought the movement was confined to those group of elders (who are all men drunk with visions of grandeur), and they were trying to formulate a system that made Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, NCT, and redemptive-historical hermeneutics work together as a unified theology. Four years later, I came to realize that they were a mere reflection of a total package.
About a year ago, I received a book from an individual whom I suspect knew that there was a connection between Gospel Sanctification and Sonship Theology, but wanted me to see it for myself. The connection was immediately seen in the first 100 words of Adams’ book. After much more research, it looked like Jack Miller was the father of Gospel Sanctification, but I was haunted by a few things. GS seemed to need NCT’s view of the law to function without contradiction. Also, all elements of Sonship and the historical connections were easy to match with GS, but NCT theology seemed to be dropped in out of nowhere. Of course, it didn’t surprise me that the elders of the church I was a member of or CCEF never uttered the name, “Sonship” because that would supply Christians with an interpretive prism that could expose them. Then, several months later, by accident, I stumbled upon an article that mentioned the Australian Forum and how it had a profound effect on the theological mindset of Michael Horton. That prompted me to say to myself, “Oh really?” “What is the Australian Forum?” Well, the rest is history.
Future parts will put veneer on the framework posted here, but any clarifying questions are welcome.
paul
Clearcreek Chapel’s “All in the Family”
“I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.” ~ Robert Brinsmead
Clearcreek Chapel in Springboro, Ohio is a good representation of the kinship between all of the elements in our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-K7 ). One of the joys of this ministry is reconnecting family members with long-lost relatives. It is intriguing to see how remnants of the genealogy chart are all gathered at the bottom—thirty-something years later, but with family members like Robert Brinsmead and Jon Zens (the original patriarchs) missing. Heartbreaking.
Not only that, credit is not being given where credit is due; for example, Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology, which pumped new life into the centrality of the objective gospel (aka Gospel Sanctification and New Covenant Theology) after it received a brutal beating from Walter Chantry and others on the left side of the chart, is never mentioned at T4G, TGC, and SGM gatherings, even though the primary disciples of Jack Miller (Tim Keller and David Powlison) are major players in those movements. Could it be because the Sonship label was shot full of holes by Jay Adams and Chad Van Dixhoorn on the right side of the chart? It would really do my heart good to see the Sonship label proudly displayed at the 2012 T4G. I mean, we’re talking family here.
Though I will be writing about many of these bottom-of-the chart family reunions, Clearcreek Chapel is an excellent specimen. The “elder” in charge of their “adult education” is Christian radio personality Chad Bresson, who authors a blog dedicated to Geerhardus Vos. Bresson is a member of the Earth Stove Society which promotes New Covenant Theology. Bresson has recently posted a lengthy article on eighty elements of New Covenant Theology followed by four articles on the writings of Graeme Goldsworthy. Also, a post by Bresson that articulates how New Calvinists interpret the Bible using a lengthy excerpt from the writings of Robert Brinsmead drew a lot of heat from some readers: http://goo.gl/qbeS4 .
Bresson was a recent speaker at the John Bunyan Convention which is a yearly conference that fictitiously uses the name of Bunyan to promote New Covenant Theology (NCT). This year’s conference included two primary figures of NCT, Fred Zaspel and John Reisinger. The conference was held at Reformed Baptist Church in Lewisburg, PA and I have not ascertained whether or not it is a Continental Baptist church which are a small fellowship of NCT churches that split from Reformed Baptist circles over the NCT issue. The debate that fueled the split was primarily between the father of NCT, Jon Zens, and Walter Chantry. Reformed Baptist protestants staunchly proclaimed NCT to be Antinomianism and were not the least bit apologetic about the accusation. Jon Zens is now in the background, probably because of his close association with the likable, but controversial Robert Brinsmead.
While Bresson shows Clearcreek’s kinship with Jon Zens, Brinsmead, and Goldsworthy, the Chapel leadership as a group focuses heavily on David Powlison’s Theology of the Heart ( http://goo.gl/8UnBe ) and John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. In fact, the pastor of Clearcreek is a well known rabid follower of John Piper. It is my understanding that Piper’s Christian Hedonism is presented yearly in the adult Sunday school class. Paul David Tripp is a frequent speaker there and the Chapel was one of the pilot churches that “tested” Tripp’s book How People Change, which is based on Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change.
The common thread that ties all of the family members together is the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel (COG). This core thread (COG) was primarily developed by Brinsmead and Zens. Though it includes what Brinsmead describes (in our interview) as a collection of jewels, there is no doubt that Brinsmead and Zens formulated the basic systematic theology that makes its present-day life possible. In regard to any such system prior to the Forum, Brinsmead stated: “I gathered up jewels that others here and there had mined, and just put it together in a way that seemed clear and important to me. If I could, it would be easier to reply that I had copied the package from somewhere in particular, but I am not able to do that. What I was on about impacted others and sharpened others up – like Paxton and Goldsworthy – and Jons [as confirmed later: Jon Zens] and a guy called Edward Fudge and others along the way.”
COG states that all spiritual growth comes from contemplating the gospel outside of us. Any truth that is placed in the same priority at any given time is said to eclipse Christ. Inside considerations (the inner us [subjective]) would be included, which relegates the new birth to a position of insignificance—paving the way for the total depravity of the saints, “The same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you,” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (coined by Jack Miller and aped excessively by Jerry Bridges). As this foundational thread (system) has weaved through contemporary church history, it has been endowed with an explanation of how it is experienced (Christian Hedonism); how it applies to life (Heart Theology); its view of covenants (New Covenant Theology); and an interpretive model that enables outcomes that fit together logically (The Goldsworthy Trilogy [research on how the Dutch Reformed movement and Vos may have influenced Goldsworty is still pending]).
In an introduction to a Christian Hedonism class at Clearcreek Chapel, Chad Bresson said, “This is what makes us unique.” While one wonders why the goal is to be unique, we all can agree that it’s family that makes it all so special.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
13 comments