Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 9: Three Men Who Stood Against New Calvinism
“Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,”
“….they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism.”
“This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.”
A friend referred me to a lively discussion going on at the Pyro blog concerning John Piper’s (Piper is a New Calvinist) ongoing association with Rick Warren. It’s not about Piper’s theology, it’s about who he associates with. I’m I here right now? What is more obvious than the fact that New Calvinism came forth from the womb crying, “anomia”? That was the predominant contention of one of the men who stood against New Calvinism. As we work through New Calvinism’s short history using the Gospel Sanctification/Sonship genealogy chart, let it be noted that the movement ran into two major contentions during its development.
Walter J. Chantry
Chantry occupies much of the subject matter of Zens’ historical essay. During New Calvinism’s early development in Reformed Baptist circles, Chantry launched a fervent offensive against Zensology. And most notably—Chantry called it out as being Antinomianism. Chantry’s first sortie came in 1978; Zens writes the following:
“In 1978 and 1979 the opposition to the articles in BRR accelerated (accompanied also by a number of positive encouragements!). Walt Chantry, a leader among the “Reformed Baptists” in the northeast, wrote a brief letter and accused me (without providing any documentation) of propagating “neo-dispensationalism” and “neo-antinomianism” (July, 1978).
I spent hours at the Vanderbilt Library in Nashville researching ‘antinomianism,’ and documented in my lengthy reply to Walt why I repudiated it. I re-sent Walt my articles that disturbed him, and asked him to underline any sentences that bothered him, and told him that I would be glad to consider any points he wished to make (August, 1978). No reply was ever received.”
Chantry’s second sortie, according to Zens, was in 1979:
“At the Summer, 1979, Reformed Baptist Family Conference Walt Chantry delivered some messages on the ‘Kingdom of God.’ In them he attacked the positions of the Reconstructionist movement and BRR. Walt suggested that our position carried with it a denial that there is only one people of God and one way of salvation, a denial that the O.T. is relevant for now, and a denial that the heathen are sinners (because they are not “under law”). While he quoted from the Reconstructionists, he never once cited anything from BRR to document his strong accusations.
In my reply to these tapes (August, 1979), I tried to show Walt that he had totally misconstrued what I believed. Since Al Martin introduced these tapes by announcing that the substance of Walt’s messages would be put into book form, I pleaded with Walt in my reply to not go into print with these misrepresentations of my position.
Walt replied, but still made no attempt to document his allegations (September, 1979). His displeasure was obvious:
‘It is clear that some major shifts have been made. And your
new categories have sown confusion in our churches — not about what we shall call Biblical teachings. Your writings have provoked a new revolt against the very Biblical idea of righteousness and altered the Biblical understanding of the gospel . . . . What has been put into print has been damaging to the cause of Christ . . . . With complete distaste for controversy, but with greater aversion to your dangerous and confusing novelties,
Walter J. Chantry, Pastor.’”
Interestingly, Zens’ articles defending his position against Chantry were coincided with a series of articles by Robert Brinsmead in Baptist Reformation Review. Zens’ stated it this way:
“A sort of (unintended) culmination occurred in the Spring, 1981, BRR. There were lengthy review articles of Walt Chantry’s God’s Righteous Kingdom and Robert Brinsmead’s Judged by the Gospel: A Review of Adventism. The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel was stated forcefully by RDB [Robert D. Brinsmead]:”
Notice that the foremost figure of the Australian Forum, Robert Brinsmead, was used to defend Zens’ position against Chantry in regard to “The dynamic N.T. approach to law and gospel.” Without a doubt, this phrase later became known as “New Covenant Theology” which was coined by Zens in 1981, according to Dennis Swanson.
Pastor Al Martin
According to Zens:
“In February of 1980, Al Martin presented an emotionally charged message on ‘Law and Gospel’ to a pastor[‘]s’ fellowship in Canada. In it he echoed the charges Wa[lt]if Chantry – ‘neo-antinomianism,’ ‘de facto dispensationalism,’ ‘nothing is regulative for the Christian but the N.T. documents,’ ‘Moses no longer has any valid function in the church of Jesus Christ.’
In my reply to Pastor Martin, I had to ask him just how he would document his sweeping charges, and why he had to resort to such high charged emotionalism (e.g., saying that we encouraged people to ‘stop their ears to Moses,’ and ‘they go on like wild bulls propagating their views of classic antinomianism,’ March 25, 1980). I further said:
As Pastor D.M. Canright said, ‘men who are conscious of being in the right can afford to state the position of their opponents fairly.’ . . . You do your position no help by saying that BRR has put a ‘concrete barrier’ between the two Testaments, and that ‘nothing is carried over.’ No, Pastor Martin, such biased sentiments cannot be documented in BRR. If your position is right, then please manifest a Christian, brotherly approach in stating the position of your opponents fairly (3/25/80). No reply was ever received from Pastor Martin. One of the pastors who attended this presentation in Toronto,
James Shantz, wrote a letter to Al Martin in which he said, ‘I continue to be greatly dismayed by your lecture on Law and Grace, as I have continued to study it on tape. Your declaration that BRR . . . is teaching antinomianism reveals that you yourself have not carefully studied all the materials.’ Further, Shantz wrote a lengthy paper, ‘The Puritan Giant and the Antinomian Ghost,’ in which he raised a number of questions about traditional Reformed theology.’”
Dr. Jay E. Adams
One must now look to the other side of our genealogy chart ( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ). The doctrine cooked-up by Brinsmead and Zens had several points of entry into Westminster Seminary. I am in the midst of the research, but: Zens was a student there; both Present Truth and Baptist Reformation Review had a wide readership at Westminster; Michael Horton was infatuated with the Australian Forum, and at least one writer says the Forum framed much of his theology/ministry; in fact, the Australian Forum formally met with the Westminster Faculty; students from Westminster attended a church where Zens was a Sunday school teacher; it is likely that Westminster’s present infatuation with Geerhardus Vos came via the Australian Forum and Jon Zens.
Jack Miller, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary, took the basic concept of sanctification by justification alone and put his own twist on it: Sonship Theology. More research is needed, but it appears that New Covenant Theology was dieing out on the Reformed Baptist side (thanks to Walter Chantry?). Continental Baptist presently have a very small following. However, New Covenant Theology found new life among Presbyterians via Jack Miller and Westminster Seminary. Notwithstanding, the movement encountered fierce opposition in Presbyterian circles, most notably from Dr. Jay Adams who wrote a book in contention against it: Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course Timeless Text 1999. I must say, the intestinal fortitude of Presbyterians in standing against Sonship Theology is very impressive—if not refreshing.
Which is why the nomenclature was dropped as the movement was forwarded by disciples of Jack Miller: Tim Keller and David Powlison. Therefore, for several years, the movement had no name. Christians knew it was something, and that it was attached to like elements, but there was simply no way to identify it. Worse yet, it seems that “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel,” giving it a sort of hands-off protectionism. Finally, the movement was recently named “Gospel Sanctification” by protestants and the label seems to be sticking. The movement itself has recently begun to accept the “New Calvinism” label. But still, identification is a major problem and the movement deliberately hides behind the confusion.
Recently, Jay Adams has added a “Gospel Sanctification” archive to his blog where he writes articles against the movement. In one such article, Adams recently stated: “This movement runs contrary to the Reformation and the Scriptures. It is dangerous and must be exposed and halted.” The fact that Tim Keller and David Powlison are major figures in the New Calvinist / Gospel Sanctification movement speaks for itself. The popular slogans among New Calvinist, “You must preach the gospel to yourself every day,” and, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you” where coined by Jack Miller. But those from the top of the genealogy chart are also present in today’s New Calvinism; for example, G. Goldsworthy, one of the original Australian Three, wrote the “Goldsworthy Trilogy” which is the New Calvinist authority on gospel-centered interpretation.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 8: The Brinsmead / Zens Affair Gives Birth To New Calvinism
As I continue to absorb an astounding document written by Jon Zens, “Law And Ministry In The Church: An Informal Essay On Some Historical Developments (1972-1984),” the Zens/Brinsmead connection and its contribution to the birth of New Calvinism becomes evident. Zens’ essay covers the early years of the movement until the time when it took on a life of its own—1984.
Zens became a Calvinist in 1967 and joined Sovereign Grace Baptist Church in Prospectville, PA in 1972. During this time, according to him, he began his quest into the “law/gospel issue.” He became a teacher there and started preparing Sunday school lessons that refuted Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Apparently, these theologies contradicted where he wanted to go with the law/gospel issue. At least ten students from Westminster Seminary were in his class. In the same timeframe, he became a student at Westminster and was receiving Present Truth (hereafter PT), the theological journal of the Australian Forum. It seems that the journal had a wide readership there because it was “the largest English-speaking theological journal in the world at the time.” Hence, the father of New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and the Australian Forum were impregnating Westminster with elements of New Calvinism from the very beginning. The infusion of other Reformed Baptist such as John Piper could have happened in a number of different ways as Zens was a Reformed Baptist and PT had a wide readership among Reformed Baptist as well.
Furthermore, Zens moved to Nashville in 1975 and was writing articles for the Baptist Reformed Review (hereafter BRR) which was started by Norbert Ward in 1972. It is clear that Zens turned the magazine into a vessel for promoting a “Christ-centered approach to ethics.” In reading this historical account by Zens, it makes one’s head spin as it seems he was on a mission with a vengeance while living out of a suitcase—to create and spread some sort of new twist on “the centrality of Christ in obedience.” Nevertheless, the vessels at his disposal were very influential; and therefore, it is surprising that it has taken thirty-six years for this movement to arrive at its present zenith. BRR later became the official theological journal for the Continental Baptist who split from Reformed Baptist over NCT.
Meanwhile, the desire to synthesize justification and sanctification is nothing new. JC Ryle said: “ But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ—that is, justification and sanctification.” Overemphasizing Christ to the exclusion of the Father and the Holy Spirit in order to do so is not that difficult. In fact, that’s exactly the error Ryle was contending with in his time. But in regard to eschatology, God’s emphasis on last things seems to bring up all kinds of pesky issues that eclipse the centrality of His Son, like Israel etc. What to do? Answer: invoke good ole’ fashioned Hagelian Historicism (pp. 67, 68, Tim Black: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Geerhardus Vos). It is clear that the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) was a think tank seeking to codify sanctification by justification alone into a unified theological system (with the primary motive of reforming Adventism). In doing this, law/gospel; obedience, and eschatology would have been key considerations. The Zens/Af connection filled the order.
Zens met with Brinsmead at length in 1979 and pointed out a contradiction in the AF’s view of law verses the centrality of Christ in evangelism. Zens said that the result was “brilliant” essays appearing in Verdict (formally PT). Zens wrote at least one article for the AF (when it was still PT) that apes the NC motif that any other consideration of Scripture apart from a redemptive-historical view is existentialism. This is also a major theme in Michael Horton’s writings. In 1981 and 1982, Zens spoke at “several” Verdict (AF seminars) seminars on the west coast, and admits that he changed the name of BRR to “Searching Together” in order to accommodate Adventist readers. Toward the end of the essay, Zens quotes Brinsmead from Judged by the Gospel in which Brinsmead states the AF’s affirmation that all of history must be seen through the gospel, a NCT staple.
It is clear that remnants of sanctification by justification alone were loosely about along with attempts to convert eschatology into a plenary gospel historicism, but there is little doubt that Zens and the AF were the ones who did the heavy lifting in regard to forming these ideas into a systematic theology. Without that systematic theology, the New Calvinism movement is not what it is today, if anything at all. In fact, Zens’ cohorts among Reformed Baptist (including John Reisinger, a longtime friend of Zens) sought to form their own association because they feared the “movement” would end up being a “flash in the pan.”
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy, Part 6A: Horton’s Kinship With the Australian Forum Can be Seen in Frame’s Review
Let me continue to voice my appreciation for the information sent by readers; that’s what this network ministry is all about— cooperation in sharing information about New Calvinism / Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology which are all the same thing, and hereafter: NCGSS. Information sent yesterday is the subject of this post.
This particular series is exploring the possibility that New Calvinism was born from the Australian Forum. A working hypothesis chart can be viewed in part 2 of this series
( http://wp.me/pmd7S-Gm ); Horton’s place in the theoretical history can be seen on the chart. One thing thus far is certain: the doctrines are identical. Furthermore, both movements show the same motives, and both claim to have returned to Reformed / Puritan doctrine—this is the same dominate theme / staple of both movements. Also, there is reason to believe that New Covenant Theology was conceived from Jon Zens’ association with the Forum, and he also shared their desire to find middle ground between difficult doctrines.
As I noted previously, the Australian Forum Three were 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 and the Forum were trying to reform SDA, the Australian Forum (hereafter AF) endorsed much of Ellen White’s teachings. In fact, Paxton was infatuated with Adventist theology and lost a teaching position because of his association with the AF. Paxton and Brinsmead also shared a rabid distaste for Charismatic theology (they would not be pleased with New Calvinism’s inclusion of Charismatics). Goldsworthy’s motives for being involved with the AF are yet unclear, but the fact that he is oftentimes quoted by New Calvinist (hereafter NC) is no accident.
The subject of this post is John Frame’s review of Michael Horton’s “Christless Christianity” sent to me by a reader. The review is full of painstaking discernment. This kind of discipline in sorting through the mystical theological world of Michael Horton is very commendable. Frame also mentions what I call Horton’s Kerryisms: “I was for it before I was against it.” Or, “I know I said ‘A,’ but let me clarify so you poor spiritual peasants don’t misunderstand my theological brilliance: I only said ‘A’ in a manner of speaking, unless you agree with ‘A.’ If you agree, I really said it, but if you disagree, I was only saying ‘A’ in a manner of speaking.”
As I was reading Frames’ review—I saw AF footprints everywhere. I will be pointing to that relationship, using Frames review while mentioning other residual issues related to NC.
Frame opens his review this way:
The title of this book is alarming, certainly by design. But the subtitle is even more so. Does it mean that the whole American church (all traditions, denominations, locations) is committed to an “alternative Gospel?” Or is it that, though part of the American church upholds the true, biblical gospel, there is within that church a movement (evidently a significant movement) to the contrary?
John, Horton is what we call a New Calvinist. They hold to the doctrine of Gospel Sanctification. As implied by the title, we are supposedly sanctified by the same gospel that saved us. In other words, we are sanctified by justification, and the contemplation thereof. As John Piper says, “beholding as a way of becoming.” John: yes! Yes! Yes! They believe anything short of monergistic substitutionary sanctification is a false gospel. That’s why Horton’s ministry is named “Modern Reformation.” Listen very carefully to Piper’s “6 Minute Gospel” video on the internet as he calls for Evangelicals everywhere who believe in our efforts in sanctification to be saved from works salvation. It’s why Tullian Tchividjian said the following:
“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.”
These guys believe that God is using them to reform another Dark Age of distinctions between justification and sanctification. They are also very resentful—they believe that Evangelicalism has sold the church a bill of goods about salvation. This attitude can be seen in the many hostile ministry takeovers playing out across this country (of which are finally being spoken of by Ovadal, Hamilton, and others). A good example is Coral Ridge. This mentality is also identical to that of the AF Three. A good thumbnail of this doctrine / mentality can be read in Horton’s Christless Christianity:
“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.”
NO ONE has yet demanded that Horton explain this statement. And this is fact: any statement made by NC proponents that seems to contradict this statement is just that—seemingly at odds. Furthermore, in many NC Reformed Baptist churches, they practice what is called “Redemptive Church Disciple.” When a parishioner is caught in a sin, the discipline doesn’t address the sin, it focuses on the supposed fundamental problem of how the “vast majority” of evangelicals understand the gospel. Therefore, the discipline focuses on “redemption.” The sin is supposedly a mere symptom of a false gospel. Hence, the discipline focuses on converting the individual from orthodox Evangelicalism to Gospel Sanctification. The discipline goes from step to step as the victim refuses to “repent” from synergistic sanctification to a monergistic substitutionary form. Moreover, as unsuspecting evangelical married couples join Reformed churches; one spouse in a marriage may come to believe the doctrine while the other spouse doesn’t. The marriage is then deemed a mixed marriage (believer / unbeliever) by the NC leadership. I have firsthand knowledge of this, and it is one of many in regard to the dirty little secrets of NC.
What are these subtle distortions? Evidently, what Horton is concerned with is an emphasis. The metaphors of “looking away from” Christ and putting something else on “center stage” have to do with the emphasis we put on Christ.
Right. Horton got this from the AF. Though Horton or the AF affirm many tenets of orthodoxy, they also say that the tenets are irrelevant for all practical purposes. Why? Because they eclipse Christ. To talk about it is to NOT talk about Christ; therefore, “it” is error. So, truthful orthodoxy is true as long as you don’t talk about it—unless you talk about “it” in it’s Christocentric context or it’s gospel context, Or it’s context in regard to justification, or it’s context in regard to what Jesus did—not anything we do. Likewise, that is how the movement denies that we are the subjects of biblical imperatives—because “the imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.”
This is also how the AF and Horton both deny the “new birth,” or the belief that Christians are born again despite what is plainly stated in Scripture. Unless the new birth can be framed in a Christocentric context that completely eliminates us from consideration—it’s error. As long as you don’t talk about it—it’s truth, so if anyone calls them on it—they simply say that “emphasis” is the issue, not a denial of the new birth. Let me further elaborate. I wrote the following in part 4:
“This post is about NCGSS’s total depravity of the saints—and AF’s denial of the new birth. Obviously, spiritually dead saints (as Paul Tripp teaches), and born again Christianity is a contradiction. In Present Truth Magazine (the official journal of AF doctrine), archives volume 37, article 4, Paxton (one of the AF Three) penned the article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth.” Present Truth had a large readership among Reformed Baptist in the seventies, and many voiced their displeasure at the article…. Take note: Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three and the golden boy of NCGSS hermeneutics, affirmed his agreement with Paxton by footnoting the article in “Obituary for the Old Testament.”:
‘Bultmann’s existential gospel led him inevitably to a negative view of the Old Testament. 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.1’”
The footnote in the same article is the following:
1 See Geoffrey J. Paxton, ‘The False Gospel of the New Birth,’ Present Truth Magazine 7, no.3 (June 1978): 17-22.
Let me save a bunch of ink here. The premise of Paxton’s article is that since the new birth isn’t as important as focusing on Christ’s works in the gospel—the new birth is therefore not relevant. Again, it’s either / or, which characterizes and saturates NCGSS teachings. While Paxton writes, ‘We [“we” being the AF Three] are not saying that the typical evangelical approach to the new birth is an outright denial of the truth….’ he then continues to write, ‘Rather, it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root. Many who do this are good people whose Christian status and integrity we do not question. But that is the alarming thing about the newbirth craze.’”
So, the new birth is false because, “it is the corruption of the ultimate truth. It confuses a good effect with the best cause. It puts a good fruit in place of the best root.” Therefore, unless the new birth is taught without considering saintly ramifications, it eclipses Christ and becomes a false doctrine. Horton reflected this exact same maniacal approach to the new birth in: “In the Face of God.” I will now compare Paxton’s summary quote from the aforementioned article and a quote from Horton in the book I just mentioned:
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?”
The above discussion casts some light on another theme of this book, one which Horton develops in many of his writings. Horton often emphasizes his view that the gospel focuses (again, note the relative term) on the “outer” rather than the “inner,” what happens outside of us, rather than what happens within us, the objective rather than the subjective. He quotes Goldsworthy,
“The pivotal point of turning in evangelical thinking which demands close attention is the change that has taken place from the Protestant emphasis on the objective facts of the gospel in history, to the medieval emphasis on the inner life. The evangelical who sees the inward transforming work of the Spirit as the key element of Christianity will soon lose contact with the historic faith and the historic gospel “(152).
Again, Horton gets this from the AF. And therefore, the quote by Goldsworthy, one of the AF Three, should come as no surprise. The AF wrote no less than 103 articles on this subject. Here is one excerpt:
“The tendency of human nature is to make the subjective aspect of Christianity the focal point of concern. This is what happened in the early church. It lost sight of the great Pauline message of justification by God’s work outside of man. Even in the teachings of the fathers of the post-apostolic church, the objective truth of justification by faith held no prominent place. More and more the church began to focus on the experience of sanctification. Indeed, justification came to be looked upon only as an initiating step at the beginning of the Christian’s life; the mighty Pauline truth about justification was subordinated to what was thought to be the higher blessing of sanctification. The focus of attention was away from the gospel to the fruit of the gospel, away from Christ’s experience to Christian experience, away from the objective to the subjective.”
This second excerpt shows why this subject was core to the AF doctrine:
“The medieval thought was man-centered, experience-centered, and subjective. The Reformation thought was Christ-centered, cross-centered, and objective.”
In these two statements from the AF—we see one of the core elements that NCGSS proponents believe connects them to the Reformation. Arrogantly, they believe that Pauline doctrine on justification was lost twice: once following the Apostolic Age; and again after the Reformation ignited by Martin Luther. Let there be no doubt—New Calvinist believe that they are the cutting edge of the second Reformation in Redemptive History, and they are taking no prisoners.
paul
Gospel Sanctification and Sonship’s Gospel-Driven Genealogy: Part 1, The Australian Forum and Seventh-Day Adventist Connection
It’s always been a bit perplexing to me. When you survey the Gospel-Driven, Gospel Sanctification landscape of our day that includes the T4G, Gospel Coalition, and a massive network of churches, the author of choice for their interpretive prism seems to be Graeme Goldsworthy (hereafter “GG”), an obscure, Anglican theologian from Australia.
As I said, “perplexing.” Until yesterday. While researching, I stumbled across an article written by a Christopher Taylor entitled, “Who is Bill Blogsmith?” Taylor (who I am attempting to contact for an interview) wrote the following:
“In the 1970’s a pair of Australian professors and pastors in the Anglican Church toured the world as the Australian Forum. This touring group went everywhere they were invited and preached the Word as best they could, with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding. As weeks go by I’ll be repeating and expanding on themes of this group, but you can read their thoughts in Present Truth Magazine which is online for free.
Robert Brinsmead became apostate and is sadly teaching rank heresy and frankly non-Christian beliefs. Geoffrey Paxton, the better speaker of the two, has dropped out of sight and I have lost track of him. But when they were the Australian Forum, they spoke God’s honest truth with power, conviction, and a powerful drive. Their humble efforts have shaped the thoughts and ideas of a new generation of theologians such as Rod Rosenbladt and Michael Horton.”
First, does, “….with a focus on the Gospel as central, supreme, and foremost in the Christian’s life and understanding” sound familiar? Secondly, though these guys are from Australia and were preaching in the nineteen-seventies, Robert Brinsmead is often quoted by the super-hip, who’s who of the Gospel Sanctification movement (hereafter “GS” and also known as New Calvinism—has deep roots in Sonship Theology). That’s a very interesting connection: from Australia in the seventies, preaching a gospel-centered sanctification—to playing a part in the latest rendition. Third, the author claims that this forum “shaped the thoughts and ideas” of a major player in the GS movement: Michael Horton. Fourthly, Isn’t GG from Australia? And isn’t he also an Anglican? Hmmmm.
Now GG isn’t looking so obscure, but the plot thickens. Wikipedia has this to say about the Paxton / Brinsmead relationship:
“Paxton has had significant interaction with the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and a ‘keen interest’ in its theology.This began through his acquaintance with Robert Brinsmead, as both were critical of the charismatic movement.One source described the pair as “anti-Charismatic crusaders” after one meeting.They held public meetings supporting belief in justification by faith alone. Paxton contributed to Brinsmead’s Present Truth Magazine.”
Not only did Brinsmead and Paxton share a distaste for Charismatic theology, but they worked together, along with GG, in an endeavor to reform the Seventh-Day Adventist denomination (hereafter SDA) by primarily arguing the following along with other SDA theologians (like Desmond Ford): the SDA theologians of old held to the Reformed view of sanctification, and the SDA needed to return to their reformation roots. Hence, Brinsmead, Paxton, and GG were hyper-enamored by Reformed confessions and creeds. At times, to some, it seemed like the threesome gave those documents more credence than Scripture. Sound familiar? I have no idea what compelled these three to enter the SDA fray—perhaps my continued research will offer a theory on that. But the primary purpose of Present Truth magazine was to aid the threesome in the aforementioned endeavor. Another writer stated it this way in the comment section of a forum:
“Most, if not all, the magazine articles available on that site in pdf form date from the 1970s and 1980s and appeared in the printed editions that were available free of charge to anyone who asked, thanks to the generous financial support of Robert Brinsmead, who was a successful Californian avocado grower and was seeking to reform Adventism. Brinsmead himself wrote many of the articles, but many others were written by Rev. Geoffrey Paxton, a ‘conservative’ Anglican priest who taught at Queensland Bible Institute in Australia. Listed as a Consulting Editor was another ‘conservative’ Anglican priest, Rev. Dr. Graeme Goldsworthy, who also taught at QBI and later taught at Moore
Theological College in Sydney (the official theological institution of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney); I do not recall whether Goldsworthy wrote for the magazine or was merely a consultant. (Paxton wrote The Shaking of Adventism, and Goldsworthy is the author of several books.) I do not recall any pro-Adventist views being promoted in the magazines.
Their purpose was to promote what they saw as the truly Protestant view of salvation, which had been corrupted not merely by Adventists but by many other “Protestants” – even so-called ‘evangelical’ ones.”
GG, in fact, did write many of the articles. Furthermore, the very close kinship of beliefs between GG, Paxton, and Brinsmead can be seen by the fact that they reference each other in Present Truth articles. In particular, GG referenced (for agreement purposes) an article written by Paxton in which he wrote that Christians are NOT “born again.” Sound familiar? By the way, Paxton was dismissed from a teaching position for, as Desmond Ford puts it, “his refusal to lay aside his interest in the Adventist ‘cult’” (“The Truth of Paxton’s Thesis” by Desmond Ford. Spectrum 9:3 July 1978).
Now, in regard to the articles in Present Truth and their agreement with Gospel Sanctification—I would like to say that there are no words to describe the uncanny dittolarities, so I will use examples: it would be like distinguishing between two twin penguins; it would be like distinguishing between two capital Ts; It would be like distinguishing between John Piper’s opinions and Justin Taylor’s opinions. It’s the same stuff, and in mass volumes.
Moreover, I was surprised to see that Jon Zens, a primary figure in the development of New Covenant Theology (a GS tenet), also wrote at least one article for Present Truth as well.
A lot more research needs to done which will be reflected in part 2 and other articles following, but it would appear that the Australian Forum preceded Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology. The Australian Forum may, or may not be, the cradle of GS theology. So far, we see a road; some parts wide and well paved, and other parts narrow, from the Forum Trio in Australia, to Michael Horton and others at Westminster (probably one being Edmund Clowney). Then to others at Westminster as well; namely, Jack Miller, and Tim Keller. From them, to David Powlison, Paul Tripp, and Timothy Lane. How Sonship then became Gospel Sanctification is sketchy, but should be easy to figure out in time. Let me further bolster this a little bit by quoting a pastor who graduated from Westminster with a MDiv:
“Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary, came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller, rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF, entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s preaching at Redeemer in NYC) and in the country (through the personal testimony of change in Ray Cortese’s life and teaching as senior pastor at Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL).
If you want a taste of Sonship theology you can find it in Gospel Transformation put out by World Harvest Ministries; Ministries of Mercy by Tim Keller; or A Faith Worth Sharing by C. John Miller.”
In the forthcoming parts, I will compare the Australian Forum’s theology with GS/ Sonship. Is it the cradle of GS, or just another stop along the way? Did this trio create a doctrine designed to refute Charismaticism and Adventism without properly regarding the truth? What does the rest of the family tree look like? Lord willing, we will find out.
paul
Luke 24:27, and 44: Every Verse In The Bible Is Not About Christ
A supposed “proof text” used by Sonship / GS proponents is Luke 24:27 and 24:44: “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” And, “He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms’” (verse 44).
Supposedly, these verses demonstrate that all of Scripture is about Christ. Let me be clear; if someone wants to say that every verse in the Bible is about what Christ says / commands / teaches / demonstrates, I agree wholeheartedly, but that’s not what GS proponents are saying. They are saying, with an ever-so slight twist and a wink, that all of Scripture is about Christ as a “person.” Instead of focusing on what Christ says, the goal now is to discover who He is personally so you can have an “intimate” relationship with Him. Nobody knows what that means exactly—it just sounds spiritual. Certainly, it sounds more spiritual than living by “a bunch of rules and a list of do’s and don’ts.” Bingo, you have gone from the objective to the subjective; now you can teach anything you want to teach. And trust me, they do. We are not yet trying to ascertain from Scripture what Jesus’ favorite color is, or His favorite food, but give it time—maybe till the next Francis Chan book.
However, to begin with, Christ wasn’t even saying that all Scripture concerns Him. The totality of Scripture available at that time was the Old Testament, and had three divisions: the law, the prophets, writings (which included the Psalms). Most historians think that this is how the OT was divided at that time (actually, the evidence is pretty solid). The order was later changed in the Septuagint (LXX). So in Luke 24:44, why did Jesus only mention the Psalms in the writings part / division? Normally, when Jesus spoke of the OT as a whole, he used the term, “Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 5:17) or just “Law” (Matthew 5:18). A good explanation can be found in “The Infallible Word” written by the Westminster Theological Seminary faculty in 1946 (when their faculty had their right minds).
In the book, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not the Sonship / GS idea that all Scripture is Christocentric. Here is what he said on page 61:
“What, however is meant by Christ’s use of the word ‘psalms’? Did he thereby intend to refer to all the books in the third division of the canon, or did he merely have in mind the book of Psalms itself? The latter alternative, we think, is probably correct. Christ singled out the book of Psalms, it would appear, not so much because it was the best known and most influential book of the third division, but rather because in the Psalms there were many predictions about himself. This was the Christological book, par excellence, of the third division of the Old Testament canon.
Most of the books of this third division do not contain direct messianic prophesies. Hence, if Christ had used a technical designation to indicate this third division, he would probably have weakened his argument to a certain extent. But by the reference to the Psalms he directs the minds of his hearers immediately to that particular book in which occur the greater number of references to himself.”
In the estimation of the Westminster faculty during that time, the whole Bible isn’t a “Christological book, par excellence” as it is more than fair to say of the GS mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself [Christ]. “Greater number” of…, obviously implies that their view wasn’t in alignment with a comprehensive soteriology, but rather the latter being among other revelations of God’s will and character, although a major theme.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
3 comments