“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 1: Saving Dr. Mohler [From the past, but I still had my sense of humor.]
Dr. Mohler,
Thank you for your prompt response to my open letter, http://wp.me/pmd7S-ww . Your response stated the following:
“I received and read with interest your letter received in my office on February 14, 2011. I appreciate your concern to uphold biblical doctrine, but I cannot recognize in your letter the beliefs of anyone that I know.
I stand for and teach the doctrine historically held by Southern Baptist and in complete accordance with our denominational confessions of faith.
I do appreciate your concern for the biblical fidelity and pray that God will always protect his church from error.”
Dr. Mohler, I fear that I have dropped the ball by not opening all of my mail sooner because of the following: you don’t know anyone who holds to the doctrine described in my letter, but you will soon be attending the 2011Gospel Coalition conference in Chicago. In order to protect your innocence, I am going to inform you of some of the men who will be there that you don’t know. Also, their pictures can be viewed here, http://thegospelcoalition.org/conferences/2011/#speakers so you will know them if or when you see them.
First, let’s review the primary concern expressed in my letter concerning Sonship theology:
“In fact, my research indicates that this whole movement, as we know it today, was conceived by a professor of practical theology (Dr. Jack Miller) at Westminster Seminary, probably around 1980, and dubbed ‘Sonship Theology’…. Jack Miller is the one who coined the phrase, ‘We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.’ In any case, Gospel Sanctification and Sonship are identical. Dr. Jay E. Adams wrote a book to protest the doctrine in 1999 [correction: 1996]. I would like to use quotes from that book as a way to describe the basics of the doctrine:
‘This teaching that appeals to Christians who are failing to live as they ought maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life…It claims that a person can change this sad state of affairs by continuing to preach the gospel to himself and by repenting and believing over and over again. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it.’”
First, let me also warn you that the Gospel Coalition could be promoting this doctrine as an organization. I’m sure you wouldn’t associate with them if you were aware of that, unless you, in fact, support the doctrine also, but that’s impossible because you said you didn’t know anyone who believes in Sonship theology. So, in regard to my first concern, let’s consider this excerpt from my letter: “[The doctrine] maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error by viewing the gospel merely as the way in which one is saved from the penalty of sin; instead, it ought to be viewed also as the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.”
On the Gospel Coalition website, their Confessional Statement is entitled “The Gospel for All of Life.” Hmmm, kinda sounds like “….the fundamental dynamic for living the Christian life.” They also say this in the same statement: “We have committed ourselves to invigorating churches with new hope and compelling joy based on the promises received by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Evangelism or the unsaved is not the object of this sentence, “churches” are. And how will they have “new hope” and “compelling joy”? By “….grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.” Kinda sounds like “…maintains that most of the church has been sadly in error….and…. It teaches that not only justification, but also sanctification, is by faith [alone] in the good news….The problem with Sonship is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification.”
But without further ado, let me caution you regarding those who you don’t know that will be at the conference.
Please look out for this guy; he will be there, and his name is David Powlison. Recently, he conducted a seminar at John Piper’s church and told the audience that Jack Miller was his mentor. He then proceeded to complain that Jay Adams criticized Jack Miller for telling people to “preach the gospel to themselves.” However, he forgot to mention that the criticism came in the form of a book. Maybe Dr. Powlison doesn’t agree with his “mentor” concerning Sonship theology, but then why would he criticize Adams for criticizing the Sonship mantra? Don’t know, but maybe if you meet him at the conference, you could ask. Let me know.
The next guy is Tim Keller. Please note his picture at the aforementioned link. He will be there also. He is well known as a Sonship advocate / teacher. In a post entitled, “Seven Rivers Church: a sonship home,” a pastor wrote the following:
“I’m somewhat new to the PCA and I’m still finding out many of the denominations strengths. One strength I’ve been blessed by is her sonship pastoral theology. Sonship is a brand of theology that places a great deal of emphasis on the saving benefits we have in Christ as redeemed children of God [that’s subtle]. It’s not afraid to talk about duty or commands of obedience that we are responsible for [that is—in its “gospel context”] but it does so from the vantage point of Christ redeeming work [right, like I said, in its “gospel context”]. It takes sin seriously but grace and transformation even more seriously [because we’re totally depraved and can’t keep the law anyway]. You can find Sonship theology in many churches in the PCA – such as New Life Churches in Philadelphia, Redeemer in NYC, and Seven Rivers in Lecanto, FL.
Sonship, as far as I understand it, arose from the ecclesiology of Edmund Clowney at Westminster Theological seminary [that’s not my understanding, but for sure it came from Westminster and not the Bible], came to maturity in pastoral theology in the life and preaching of C. John Miller [that would be Jack Miller], rejuvenated Christian counseling at CCEF [David Powlison], entered the world of oversees missions through World Harvest Ministries, and finally made its home in both the city (through Tim Keller’s [he will be at the conference] 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)” http://setsnservice.wordpress.com/2006/07/13/seven-rivers-church-a-sonship-home
Actually, I picked that quote but a google search with “Tim Keller—sonship” will produce a wealth of documentation connecting him to Sonship theology. I like the above quote because it mentions other names and gives me the opportunity to point out that many respected leaders in the PCA rejected Sonship and stand against it. One example can be noted here:
http://eastwoodchurch.org/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=76&Itemid=1
I have a great idea; when you meet Tim Keller, ask him what Sonship theology has in common with The Gospel Coalition. If you can, let me know.
Next is Tullian Tchividjian. He will be there also. He said the following on The Gospel Coalition blog:
“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 once God rescues sinners, his plan isn’t to steer them beyond the gospel, but to move them more deeply into it. The gospel, in other words, isn’t just the power of God to save you; it’s the power of God to grow you once you’re saved. After all, the only antidote to sin is the gospel—and since Christians remain sinners even after they’re converted, the gospel must be the medicine a Christian takes every day.”
Is it just me? I think many Southern Baptist would have a problem with that statement.
Be careful at that conference Dr. Mohler. I could list many more but they’re pretty soft targets—being Charismatics, postmoderns, and those who believe in baptismal regeneration and such. Which brings up one last question: Is it true that those doctrinal considerations are now secondary to “getting the gospel right”? If you can, let me know.
paul
The Bridgers of Confusion County and Another Short Narrative
What’s going on? Christians are becoming confused, if not frustrated. Starting with me. I finally gave in and read a John Piper book some years ago because he was, and still is, all the rave in Reformed circles. The perplexity started on page 16 of “The Pleasures of God” where he writes the following: “The worth and excellency of God’s soul is to be measured by the object of his love.” Huh? But, he loves us! Man is the measure of God’s soul?! “Certainly, I am missing something,” I thought, so I read additional books written by him. I found them nebulous, ambiguous, subjective, non-applicable to real life, grandeurus, nonsensical, to name but a few descriptors. Adding to my perplexity was the fact that John MacArthur Jr. wrote a glowing forward in one of his books.
Then Steve Camp wrote an adorable piece projecting all kinds of frustration and confusion over Piper inviting Paul David Tripp to one of his conferences. Paul Tripp behaved badly at the conference by bragging about having a “S” word contest with his children. Many also found Piper’s relationship with “Mark the cussing pastor” confusing as well. Remember the sixties song, “Buttercup”? It was about a girl that just builds you up to let you down. Could we make that work? “Johnny-cup, (Johnny-cup baby), you build me up (build me up) just to let me down (let me down), and worst of all (worst of all), we even (we even) wrote a book of essays about you (about you) Johnny-cup (Johnny-cup) baby….”
Anyway, Johnny-cup, or the first Pope of New Calvinism, further dismayed many by inviting Rick Warren to his 2010 Desiring God conference. But it gets even worse. I was recently invited to “chime in” on the recent controversy surrounding Michael Horton posing with Rick Warren in a photo op. I clicked on the link and did some snooping around. Apparently, a discernment blogger by the name of Ingrid Schlueter posted on the controversy and drew heavy fire as a result, probably along the lines of what I get for criticizing guys who know how to measure the excellency of God’s soul. How dare me. In the process, I learned a new term: “Bridger.” Apparently, it refers to someone who builds bridges between Reformed purity and others like Warren. MacArthur has a huge problem with Warren, but he loves Piper, who loves Warren, and…., uh, anyway, it would appear that Schlueter threw up her arms in disgust and canceled her discernment blog—not a good thing in our day because intestinal fortitude in regard to defending the truth is in short supply; we can make necessary adjustments later. Also, it would appear that her critics disingenuously presented her protest as her having a problem with Horton merely being photographed with Warren, but it was really much more than that. Furthermore, I perused one blog that seems to be one of her critics that also promotes Paul Washer—a GS hack. Is Ingrid another victim of the silent killer? So, here is part one of my contribution (“chime”): she needs to dust herself off and remember that those who defend the truth will always be in the minority. We don’t need fewer defenders right now.
Now about the photograph. Horton is posing with Warren who MacArthur says preaches a false gospel, but Horton and MacArthur like each other and have done at least one conference together, and Horton has also been critical of him in the past although he also admires him for many reasons (Warren, not MacArthur), and…. anyway, here is why the photo is such a big deal: Horton is not only in a frame with Warren, the photo projects—bosom buddy; long lost friend; top dawg; thinkin’ of makin’ him leader of my posse (Horton, not Warren); etc. And get this, because it’s just too rich: even though Horton has accused Warren of being an Arminian in the past, there in the picture between them, is a bust of John Calvin! Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid; c’mon girl, you gotta learn to laugh about it sometimes. God allows satire.
This brings me to the second tone of my chime. What’s really going on here? Answer: first gospel wave, postmodernism, second gospel wave, or Gospel Sanctification / Sonship theology. In all of the aforementioned events that I cite, folks are just spearing the symptoms. As far back as 1992, I remember a young pastor saying, “My generation is comfortable with contradictions”(if something’s good, it’s “bad” etc.). Right, that’s postmodernism. John MacArthur, who associates with those who hold to postmodern-like thinking, wrote an excellent expose on postmodernism in “The Truth War.” I recommend the book, not his friends. Confused?
Starting in the fifties, a member of the largest denomination in the world, Billy Graham, started the first gospel wave. Basically, all that mattered/matters is getting people saved. Even as a young Southern Baptist, just beginning to learn God’s word in 1983, I perceived the constant preaching of the gospel at church as antithetical to the Scriptures. A plenary gospel concern clearly replaced discipleship. This led to an all but total inability on the part of Christians to take the word of God and help people with real-life problems—which led to pastors (at least in SB circles) to farm-out counseling to schools of thought conceived by those who admitted that they hated God. When Dave Hunt shook Christianity with “The Seduction of Christianity,” decrying the integration of Psychology and Christian truth, it addressed a symptom and offered no solution, except “stop it.”
The solution came via Dr. Jay E. Adams’ biblical counseling model. I think the fact that Jay Adams is known as “the father of biblical counseling,” and his ministry started with the book “Competent to Counsel” (1972?) should make my point here: 1972 is a long way from Pentecost which demands some sort of explanation as to why anybody would be called such a thing. An experience I had recently might help to answer that question. I was at a pastor’s conference about eight months ago and witnessed the following firsthand: pastors bragging that they “didn’t allow counseling to distract them from ‘the gahhhhsssfull’” The gospel? I was an elder in a church where twelve people were saved in one year through its counseling program that was based on the biblical model propagated by Adams. When you show people that God knows what He’s talking about, they will also tend to look to Him for salvation as well. Personally, the model had radically changed my own life prior to that.
Nevertheless, this first gospel wave primed the church to fill the void (caused by a limited repertoire of spiritual weapons) with not only psychology, but postmodernism, which rejects propositional truth. The “Christian” form of postmodernism holds to something like this:
“Even some professing Christians nowadays argue along these lines: ‘If truth is personal, it cannot be propositional. If truth is embodied in the person of Christ [my emphasis], then the form of a proposition can’t possibly express authentic truth. That is why most of Scripture is told to us in narrative form-as a story-not as a set of propositions” (Page 14, “The Truth War” J. MacArthur, emphasis added).
The combination of the first wave and postmodern thought also primed the church for the second gospel wave, Gospel Sanctifcation / Sonship theology. The fist wave emphasized the gospel, or salvation, to the exclusion of sanctification. The second wave said: “Hey, not only is sanctification not important, it’s the same thing as justification” (gospel salvation). Hence, “We must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday” (Jack Miller / Jerry Bridges), and “The same gospel that saved you, also sanctifies you.” The second wave also borrowed the Christian Postmodern[ism] hermeneutic to make this approach plausable: “The Bible is about the person of Jesus Christ, it is His story, not a cognitive concept that we apply to life.” “The word of God is a person.” The GS/Sonship hermeneutic serves the same purpose as Christian Postmodernism; it’s used to put ourselves into the “gospel narrative,” ie., the Bible. In fact, Michael Horton’s teachings are often flavored with this idea of “entering the gospel drama.” Once the prism from which we interpret the Bible is narrowed to the single theme of the gospel, from there, anything goes. Open your Bible and randomly put your finger anywhere; unless it happens to be a passage that is gospel specific, and if a gospel message must be forced upon that passage, twenty different people will yield twenty different interpretations of that text. But that’s ok, because all twenty interpretations are about the gospel! Follow? You can’t go wrong if your take is “gospel centered.” Final equation: objective ideas that can be drawn from the text are OUT—the “objective” gospel that yields subjective truth about the “personhood of Christ” as opposed to what he objectively commands are IN.
Therefore, regardless of the radical results yielded by the Adams model, his objective approach drew much intense fire from a church already deeply entrenched in schools of thought hostile to propositional truth and imperative-driven behavior. I firmly believe that this simple, contemporary historical perspective forms much of the confused landscape we see today. For sure, doctrine is secondary to Gospel Sanctification. That’s why Charismatics like CJ Mahaney, a GS proponent, are welcomed into the New Calvinist camp with open arms, with many scratching their heads regarding the new label: “Reformed Charsimatic.” As far as the rest mugging together in photo ops and conferences—particular truth held by others is just simply not that important—other things are, while the confused laity are still primarily looking for leaders to stand on particular truth and shun those who don’t.
But if the laity is waiting, they better not hold their breath while doing so. And really, is a whole bunch of this really about selling books? New ideas sell books. I am reading “The Story of the Church” by Charles M. Jacobs—an oldie, but goodie. He talks about how the first century church rejected academia all together, as Jesus did to a great degree. It’s obvious that the elite, religious academians controlled the information when Jesus came onto the scene—this is a constant theme throughout the New Testament. According to Jacobs, until the second century, the educated elite were barred from eldership. Sometimes, I wonder if the laity in this country will ever tire of being led around by the nose via the who’s who of the evangelical world. But at the very least, leaders should be held to biblical standards and boycotted when they don’t measure up. As Jesus said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.”
And p.s.—Ingrid, pray about putting you blog back up.
paul
Ultimately, Intentional Active Obedience Cannot Be Denied As Curative in Counseling
Some weeks ago, I was sent a webinar clip of a presentation by a NANC fellow (as in membership status, National Association of Nouthetic Counselers). The individual presented a counseling model that focused on showing the counselee the magnificence of the gospel. Supposedly, wowing the counselee or “amazing” the counselee with the gospel is curative (whether the counselee is a Christian or otherwise). Furthermore, the other side of this model proffered the idea that intentional obedience or instruction to change behavior was not only ant-curative, but legalism and works righteousness. A focus, or as some (other than the webinar presenter) call it, “moving deeper into the gospel” or “contemplation of the gospel,” results in “reasonable service” or what is known as new obedience. New obedience displays itself as a joyful “mere natural flow” which supposedly identifies the quality of obedience as being pure in motive. Duty no longer stands on its own as a virtue, but must be purified by joy and lack of our effort in the midst.
The NANC minion also referred to a behavioral emphasis in counseling as works righteousness, even when counseling a believer. So, emphasis on behavior in counseling is actually the same as beckoning the counselee to abandon the true gospel for a false one. Of course, this is counseling based on Sonship theology—“the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you” and “we must preach the gospel to ourselves everyday.” Though I am in the midst of researching this and I’m compiling a list of people I want to interview in regard to Sonship’s history, it looks like the doctrine was contrived by a former prof. of theology at Westminster Theological Seminary and further developed by one of his understudies, David Powlison, a prof. at Westminster’s counseling wing: CCEF (Christian Counseling and Education Foundation). Unfortunately, Powlison and other associates such as Paul David Tripp were allowed unfettered involvement in NANC as instructors and board members who also infected NANC with said doctrine. Roughly eleven years ago, I witnessed the takeover of a NANC training center by Sonship advocates firsthand (though I did not know what the doctrine was at the time), and a pastor friend of mine was in NANC training taught by a Sonship advocate in Lafayette, Indiana. Hence, the webinar per my introduction.
Therefore, there is an important Sonship mantra that all counselors and Christians alike should understand: “The imperative command is grounded in the indicative event.” Stop being lazy and start thinking—this is why two counseling organizations have become unwitting (I’m being tentative) partners with the kingdom of darkness, and it’s time Christians start paying attention to this stuff. The indicative event refers to the finished work of Christ on the cross. Therefore, all biblical commands that we would obey flow from Christ’s atoning work and not ours, or, “The imperative command….” Proponents of Sonship and gospel sanctification (what Sonship has morphed into of late) will often cite Bible verses where this is true—Christians obey because of what Christ has already done (you do this because Christ did that), but then they insist that this is the only biblical pattern in Scripture. Conclusion: All present, past, and future real-time active obedience was secured and imputed to us from the atonement just like righteousness. In the same way all of our righteousness comes from Christ, all of our obedience also comes from Christ. In other words, Christ obeys for us. Any effort on our part to obey is works righteousness in the same way we would try to earn our own righteousness with no distinction between justification and sanctification—they are treated as being the same thing. As Francis Chan says: if we work, “it feels like work,” but if Christ is the one working, “it feels like love.” Hence, when Christ is obeying for us (they say “through,” but that doesn’t fit what they really believe and makes it sound synergistic), it’s a joyful “mere natural flow.” This is why the teachings of John Piper are a staple in GS/Sonship circles. Piper’s Christian hedonism answers the, “How do we know when it’s us trying to obey or Christ obeying for us?
However, in Scripture, the imperative often precedes the indicative (if you do this, God will do that). Many Scriptures that emphasize rewards in this present life (Eph 6:1-3), and in the future would be good examples of this. Also, some imperatives are grounded in indicatives that God hasn’t even done yet! (Heb 10:19-25 2Pet 3:11,12 [do this because this is what God is going to do in the future]). By the way, so what if it’s us doing it, and regardless of the difficulty?—we recognize we are acting by faith because we believe that God will really do what he says He will do, and (that) faith is a gift from Him, but that doesn’t exclude our effort! This is no trite matter—this is two schools of thought that teach Christians what our role in sanctification is, and how it will be experienced in real life! The reality of this hits one in the face when we hear Michael Horton say that biblical imperatives are not “promises.” Sure, doing everything we do for the sole purpose of pleasing God is honorable, but that’s not how God Himself approaches us in every circumstance with His word. This whole subject is also paramount in regard to giving hope in counseling as well. Moreover, the folly of Sonship is exposed when advocates implement a literal hermeneutic when the IND >IMP is present, but switch to a Christocentric / gospel hermeneutic (prism) when the IMP>IND or IMP> future IND is present, aping one of Paul David Tripp’s profundities: “Well, that verse has to be considered in its gospel context.”
But, there is one more thing that exposes the folly of this Sonship/GS element; namely, a denial of intentional active obedience on the part of the counselee, and that is: real life. On this point, the advocates themselves confess. In the ebook entitled, “Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial” (chapter 3, can viewed on his website), John piper concedes the following:
“It is true that our hearts are often sluggish. We do not feel the depth or intensity of affections that are appropriate for God or His cause. It is true that at those times we must exert our wills and make decisions that we hope will rekindle our joy. Even though joyless love is not our aim (“God loves a cheerful giver!” 2 Corinthians 9:7; “[Show] mercy with cheerfulness,” Romans 12:8), nevertheless it is better to do a joyless duty than not to do it, provided that there is a spirit of repentance that we have not done all of our duty because of the sluggishness of our hearts.”
Is obeying whether we feel like it or not really sin?—or a deeper form of self-sacrifice? After all, self doesn’t want to do what God wants, right? But my main point here is that the reality of intentional active obedience cannot ultimately be rejected because real life comes knocking, as Piper himself concedes, though by writing that it is better to sin in obedience than not to obey. Uh, I think that’s what he’s saying, right? However, the most striking concession was from a CCEF counselor named Robyn Huck in an article she recently wrote about the passing of her father. Regarding the quality of her parent’s marriage, she wrote:
“My folks were married for almost 52 years. I’m the oldest of their five children and was born in their first year of marriage, so I got to witness a lot of their life together. It was not a picture of paradise all those years, but somewhere around year 20 or so, there was tremendous growth in their relationship, and since then, they have been a wonderful example of a really good Christian marriage. I know it wasn’t always easy and I know it took a lot of work. But over and over in little day-to-day moments, they intentionally gave up self and embraced the oneness God called them to. And they were very happy.”
I think it is a good reminder to many that Christians developed good marriages by applying biblical concepts like self-sacrifice long before CCEF was around, or for that matter, NANC as well. But Paul Tripp’s answer to that would be along the lines of the fellow in the webinar, and also echoed by Larry Crabb in “Inside Out”; even if your walk with Christ is strong, it can be even better when you realize that “you no longer live, but Christ lives in you! We [him and Timothy S, Lane, both prof.’s at CCEF] welcome you to a lifestyle of celebrating just what that means” (“How People Change” p.19). Well, I read the book; it means you are spiritually dead so Christ has to obey for you. You doubt that he wrote that? Here is what he also wrote on page 171: “ It is not enough for Paul to say that the death of Christ made him new. He says that when he died, the old Paul was not replaced with a new and improved version of Paul [being born again isn’t an improved version?!], but with Christ Himself!” [this isn’t true, it’s not one or the other—it’s both].
That’s why these other comments by Huck are surprising as well:
“This ‘path’ through the woods was cleared a long time ago, but it’s still the right path, and can still be found and followed in these wintery times. What I’m trying to say is that God’s provision for my mother began thousands of years ago when he provided these lessons in Scripture. With God’s help, my parents followed that path to the best of their ability, and now my mother is reaping the fine reward of wise, godly living.”
And,
“They also intentionally nurtured their faith, with habits of daily scripture reading and prayer. In each of these areas, my folks sought to live godly lives, and it was good for them. The process was good and now the product is good. God created the provision of Christian community, adequate finances, and strong living faith through their acts of obedience. My folks did not live perfectly, but for the most part, they stayed on the path.”
And,
“And though living in obedience to God’s word doesn’t guarantee an easy or comfortable life, it is the passageway for his promises to be fulfilled and for faith to be built. Now that trouble has come to my family, the blessings of following God’s path and living the obedient life just keep jumping out at me. My mom truly has what she needs, both to live and to get through this difficult time.”
And this last statement is totally astounding:
“This serves as a great reminder to me as I counsel. Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister, we must also remember that blessings can come from simply doing what the Word says to do. It’s true that the deepest blessings of obedience happen when it is done out of love, but any act of obedience can be instrumental in turning the heart, and can bring the positive outcomes that so many proverbs describe.”
Yikes! She is saying that “any act of obedience” can be “instrumental” in “turning the heart” and can bring “positive outcomes,” while giving CCEF’s staple doctrine (heart theology) a wimpy, honorable mention: “Though we are right to be focused on the hearts of the people to whom we minister…” This even implies that outward obedience with the right motive, but maybe not joyful, can “turn the heart.” To me, this is a glaring contradiction to the foundation of CCEF’s counseling philosophy.
Robyn Huck, like all counselors who really want to help people, and I definitely put her in that category, eventually come to the conclusion that IND>IMP and IMP>IND and IMP>future IND are all equally true.
paul
If Space Aliens Visited Westminster Seminary
I don’t know what’s wrong with me this morning. I sang to PJ and Phillip while taking them to school this morning: “Let the sunshine in, face it with a grin, frowner’s never win…….” Too much coffee or something. Then I guess I made the mistake of checking my FB wall before getting to work. One of my friends posted an item concerning an apparent, or possible paranormal event concerning the pale horse of the apocalypse. At first, my comment was serious:
“ Interesting. It could be paranormal – that does happen. But for Christians the question is always, “So what?” Or, Objective verses subjective. Like when lightning struck the giant image of Jesus here in Ohio: objective; God doesn’t like idols so He struck it with lightning. This [note] is more in the realm of subjective. Subjective paranormal events are sometimes a judgment because they are often a form of idol worship. People like idols because they can draw any truth they want from them; like the giant Jesus here in Ohio – it meant many different things to many different people. Likewise, people can draw all kinds of different “conclusions” from subjective paranormal activity. The apostle Paul said that in the end times God will send “delusions” as a judgment and Christ said they will be so deceptive that they could potentially deceive the elect “if that were possible.” I believe that as the time draws near we will see strong delusions, and Katie bar the door, if the likes of John Piper can fool people, one can only imagine the wholesale plunge into deeper error.”
Then something happened. You see, I have been in a cage while writing the second edition of “Another Gospel” because I made Susan the chief editor of the book. Her credentials for such a task are over the top, and it has been brutal: no sarcasm, no unprofessional statements, no unnecessary statements that don’t contribute to the main point, etc., etc., etc., and etc. Do you know what I mean? Do you hear me knocking? “No, this won’t work,” she says, “the blog is informal [my translation: fun!], this is serious business.” So, I made a second comment to the note on FB that was in jest – something about an end-time delusion concerning space aliens visiting Southern Theological Seminary and presenting a false gospel. Then I thought, “Hey, that would make a good post!”
But then I thought (Susan never lets me start a sentence with “but”), “It wouldn’t be fair to use Southern since they are primarily influenced by Westminster these days, so I will use Westminster for the imaginary scenario instead. So, imagine with me, the spaceship lands on the front lawn of Westminster Seminary, the aliens emerge, and say, “Take us to your leader.” Undoubtedly, since this would be a counseling situation, and even a possible alien abduction (I could only wish), they would summon profs from CCEF, the counseling wing of Westminster. After listening to the new gospel presented by the aliens, one can only assume they would respond this way:
“No, no, we have a much better gospel than that. We believe in change at the ‘heart level.’ You see, we don’t need to evolve, the church has always had the truth, but then it forgot a bunch of stuff. We realized the church did so when we observed people who hate us developing theories of change based on an ‘inside life.’ Unfortunately, first generation versions of ourselves deny this ‘inside life’ because they are obsessed with what can be known objectively. It is important to overcome that because even though we have recovered truth forgotten by the church, ‘it’s different because it’s always in a different socio-cultural-historical movement, and different forces are at work’ ( see David Powlison interview with 9 Marks Blog). However, this shouldn’t bother our first generation friends because the Bible is not a book of objective truth anyway, it’s a gospel narrative.
Now, on Earth we have flowers called the daisy, and if you just cut down a daisy, it will grow back again because what you need to do is get to the roots and dig them up. Likewise, idols in the heart must be found and destroyed by deep repentance. When we do that, change is just a ‘mere natural flow’ via new obedience. Now, idols in our heart take our desires captive, so we locate the idols by asking ourselves x-ray questions, which will identify desires that have been disoriented / misplaced by the idols. This is very important because like Sigmund Freud, we believe ‘Everything we do is shaped and controlled by what our hearts desire’ (How People Change, p.17). Furthermore, we like to quote a great teacher of the past who said: ‘The heart is an idol factory.’ So, as our nasty hearts continue to create these idols, we must eradicate them by deep repentance.”
At this point, the aliens have a question: “So, your gospel is a gospel that teaches a constant cycle of new idols being created in the heart and the cutting down thereof ?” Answer: “Precisely! Because when we sin, it keeps us humble and prevents self righteousness. But when we obey, it’s not really us obeying; when the idol is eradicated, the void is filled by Christ and he obeys for us. So really, it’s a constant cycle of humbleness and rejoicing in what Jesus is doing, not anything we do. This is much better than the first generation of putting off the old self and putting on the full righteousness of Christ granted to us at salvation.”
Aliens: “But isn’t that what Ephesians 4:20-24 says to do? And isn’t it more objective than idol hunting?” Answer: “That’s first generation thinking. We thought you guys are supposed to be more highly evolved than us. The Bible is a gospel narrative, and ‘Christ is a person, not a cognitive concept we insert into a new formula for life’ (How People Change, p.27). The Bible is a big picture model / story of every believers life, and we are invited to enter into the plot ( How People Change p.94).”
Aliens: “Your concept: the Bible is personal truth embodied in a person [Christ] and expressed in a narrative; therefore, it cannot be applicable truth; isn’t that postmodernism? Another one of your earthly leaders says it is (John MacArthur, Truth War pages 12-14).” Answer: “Guilt by association! Are you guys really blogwatchers posing as aliens?!”
To conclude my narrative, one of the aliens keys his communicator and says the following: “Ground to command, beam us up, there’s no intelligent life down here.”
And once again, CCEF’s research and development team has saved planet Earth!
The end.
(Don’t tell Susan I wrote this).
paul
So, When Did New Calvinism Hijack Westminster? And…
I own a couple of online bookstores and enjoy reading some of the older Christian books. As I was entering books the other day, I picked one up from the stack entitled “The Infallible Word” written by the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary, the one in Philadelphia. The book is a real keeper; It is in very good condition, and is the third revision of a symposium on the doctrine of Scripture. It was written in 1946, and the third revision (the copy I have) was printed in 1967. The forward is written by Dr. M. Lloyd Jones. Apparently, the contributors are from the Westminster faculty of that time (1946) as follows: John Murray; Edward Young; N.B. Stonehouse; John Skelton; Paul Wooley; R.B. Kuiper; Cornelius Van Til.
As Dr. Masters of the Metropolitan has noted, New Calvinism’s claim of historical precedent is far from impressive. And as others have noted, New Covenant Theology (which is joined at the hip with New Calvinism) was probably conceived at Westminster around 1980. So, when I picked up the next data entry and realized what it was, my first thought was, “this should be interesting.” Yes, especially with Paul Wooley stating in the Preface: “It continues to be our conviction that this is the basic position of the divines who made up the Westminster Assembly which convened in 1643…”
There is no room here to state all of the glaring contradictions between Old Calvinism and New Calvinism provoked by the reading of this book, but I will rather focus on what New Calvinism and its tenets (NCT, Gospel Sanctification, Heart Theology, Christian Hedonism, and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics) should stand on, or fall: its view of Scripture.
First, the faculty didn’t share New Calvinism’s Christocentric view of Scripture. Their view of Scripture was very similar to traditional Evangelicalism, which is disdained by proponents of New Calvinism. Before I continue, I might also add that Geerhardus Vos and his Biblical Theology is not once mentioned in the book, or if it is, I certainly missed it, and he (Vos) definitely appears nowhere in the index of names. Instead of “gospel” being used to refer to Scripture (actually, I remember “gospel” being used once, maybe twice, in the whole book), the term that all faculty members used throughout the book to describe Scripture, seemingly on every page, was “the objective divine authority.” Throughout the book, the emphasis was *objective authority* NOT *gospel narrative.* John Murray states the following on page 29:
“It is precisely in this estimation of the Scriptures and in such illusion to them, as not only prophetic of what took place in the fullness of time but also as having direct bearing upon the most practical and abiding of Christian duties, that the New Testament abounds.”
Got that? The Scriptures are not only about what took place in “the fullness of time” (ie., the gospel), but “also” have a “direct bearing” on practical Christian “duties.” To the New Calvinist, this statement is barley less than heresy. Furthermore, *obedience* to the *authority* of Scripture is a constant theme throughout the book. N.B. Stonehouse further elaborates on page 99:
“It is our conviction that the idea of canonicity has meaning and validity only if Christian theism, the theism of the Bible, is true. Implicit in the idea of a divinely authoritative Scripture is the thought of God as self-existent and self sufficient, the creator and ruler of the universe. His works necessarily constitute a disclosure of his mind and purpose.”
Not only does this make my prior point, but introduces another: this is a far cry from John Piper’s Christocentric assertion that God “entered history through the works of Christ.” No, redemption entered history as a disclosure of God’s mind and purpose. This leaves room for other things God may want to disclose about Himself, obviously. And this was also the position of the Westminster faculty. In fact, Edward Young attributes Luke 24:44 to the idea that Christ was speaking only of those scriptures that He prophetically and historically fulfilled, not New Calvinism’s idea that all Scripture is Christicentric. 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.”
Hence, 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 New Calvinist mantra, but only the Psalms, which is a “particular” book having a “greater number of references” to himself. “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.
Secondly, along the lines of Scripture, the faculty did not share the New Calvinist / NCT view that Christ came to abolish the Old Testament Law by fulfilling it, but rather fulfilled it to FURTHER ESTABLISH ITS AUTHORITY. John Murray makes this clear on pages 20 and 21 while commenting on Matthew 5:17-19;
“ The word ‘destroy’ (kataluo) is particularly significant. It means to abrogate, to demolish, to disintegrate, to annul or, as J.A. Alexander points out, ‘the destruction of the whole by the complete separation of its parts, as when a house is taken down by being taken to pieces.’ His emphatic denial of any such purpose in reference to either the law or the prophets means that the discharge of his messianic mission leaves the law and the prophets intact. He utters, however, not only this emphatic denial but also adds the positive purpose of his coming – he came to fulfill, to complete. And so his work with reference to both law and prophets is completory, not destructive. He who can speak in the immediately succeeding context with such solemn asseveration and imperious authority brings all that is involved in such asseveration and authority to bear upon the confirmation of the abiding validity, stability, and authority of both law and prophets. And not only so, but he also grounds his own mission and task upon such permanent validity, and defines his work in terms of fulfillment of all that the law and the prophets provided.”
Murray states here that Christ’s mission was grounded in the permanent authority of the law and the prophets. Could there be a more antithetical statement in regard to New Covenant Theology?
Lastly, Stonehouse makes it clear what the Westminster faculty believed in regard to a centrality of Scripture on page 107:
“ To put the matter in concrete and specific terms, Christianity began as a religion of a divine book, as a religion of authority which definitely acknowledged a book as an objective expression of the divine mind and will. Were it not that so many modern writers have approached the study of the New Testament cannon with the assumption that Christianity is basically not a religion of authority but a religion of “the spirit,” it would hardly seem necessary to emphasize the point that the idea of an inscripturated canon, far from being uncongenial to Christianity, forms an integral element of the Christian faith from the beginning of its life.”
While this statement makes my aforementioned point, let me also ask: what is more indicative of New Calvinism than the claim that it promotes “the spirit” over the authority of Scripture? The Westminster faculty of that time even cautioned against the truth / tension of the illuminating Spirit being set against objective authority: “This doctrine of the inward witness of the Spirit does not sacrifice the objective authority of the Scriptures, as often maintained” (p.101).
Do I have to try to carry all of the water here? Somebody help me out. It seems that these guys (as I gather from my reading) were definitely Covenant theologians. But there is no way that the movers and shakers at the present-day Westminster Seminary are of Covenant Theology. If you believe that, I would like to tell that this book is personally autographed by Van Til with a gel pen, and it can be yours for a modest price of say, 200 bucs. You can’t separate New Calvinism from NCT / Gospel Sanctification, they are joined at the hip. What’s going on over there? It looks like a hijacking to me, and when did it happen? And how do these guys get away with pretending to be on the same par with Westminster tradition? I’m just asking.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment