J. V. Fesko Exemplifies Deliberate Calvinist Deception
What Dr. Robert Congdon now calls “Classic Calvinism” expressed in contemporary New Calvinism has redefined almost every word used in theological discussion. If the false gospel of Calvinism, the epic supercult of the ages is to be contended against, Calvinists must be exposed for redefining terms and words for the deliberate purpose of deception.
This is difficult to get our minds around; that nicely polished academics would communicate to us while not clarifying what they know is being assumed by most of those listening or reading. For example, “total depravity”— they know the unregenerate as the subject is assumed. However, if they keep talking about total depravity while the subject is Christians, the idea that Christians are totally depraved will be slowly assimilated into people’s minds. This is Brainwashing 101. Furthermore, it’s true, Christians sin; so, if that is all you talk about, the idea follows without it being stated outright: Christians do nothing but sin and cannot please God. If you never talk about the good works of Christians it is assumed that there aren’t any good works without that being stated clearly. This is a deliberate communication construct:
1. Deliberately overemphasizing some realties to the exclusion of others for purposes of a particular outcome. What IS NOT being said is just as important as what IS being said.
2. Talking about subject B while subject A is the context will eventually lead people to believe A=B. For example: talking about justification in a sanctification way; eventually, justification and sanctification become the same thing.
3. Transition manipulation: This takes a number of ideas under one context and manipulates the transitions between the ideas for purposes of a specific outcome. Most Christians are lazy thinkers and don’t pay attention to transitions.
4. The redefinition of words and terms. Example: the “new birth” as realm manifestation rather than new creaturehood.
5. Word splitting. If the normal meaning of a word is a roadblock to what you want to teach, make a case for other meanings, or synonyms, and then proceed with the synonym that fits the objective. This is different from redefinition—this assigns multiple meanings to a word in order to use it for a specific goal. A good example of this is when the definition of the word, “knowledge” becomes a problem for Calvinists. In this case, Bible knowledge. It would seem that for the Christian, Bible knowledge is Bible knowledge. But that creates a problem for Calvinism, so they split Bible knowledge into “fleshly knowledge” and “intimate knowledge.” They then choose intimate knowledge as the only valid knowledge. This is framed as, “knowing the Bible and knowing Jesus are two different things.” They can now make Bible knowledge anything they want it to be. Supposedly, factual knowledge followed by obedience cannot lead to intimacy with God (not so, Peter taught that knowledge leads to intimacy with God as well as our wives); hence, we must seek Jesus in all the Scriptures. The only true knowledge is that of “Jesus’ personhood” while factual knowledge of Jesus does nothing for our relationship with him. By the way, this is the stand taken by the postmodern Emergent church as well.
6. Metaphysical dogma: Always speak to people from the prism that interprets reality the way you want it to be interpreted. When people are confused by this, the assumption is that they are ignorant and unable to understand true realty. If you persistently communicate with people according to your own view of reality, they will eventually begin to be programmed accordingly. Only your view of reality is recognized as valid.
7. Nuance, and the generic use of words. While redefining some words, and attaching multiple definitions to others, some words are used generically to fill in gaps and connect large leaps in logic. There is no better example here than the word, “gospel.” Nuance is also used to shade or soften the full brunt of what is being said.
In Reformed circles, this is the Either/Or hermeneutic. This is Gnostic epistemology. EVERYTHING must be interpreted via material (evil) or invisible (true). In the final analysis, it is the Redemptive Historical hermeneutic.
8. Redefined use of words. This is not the redefinition of meaning, but the redefinition of application; using nouns as verbs, distorted modifiers, etc.
Elitism is used to condone these techniques. This is the mythological noble lie that teaches truth in story form for the consumption of the great unwashed masses. These preordained philosopher kings understand things that the masses are unable to understand, so they can’t let the normative understanding of words stand in the way of teaching creeds for social unity. As John MacArthur associate Rick Holland once stated: good grammar makes bad theology.
Here, an excerpt sent to this author will be used to make the point. According to the sender,
The Fruit Of The Spirit is…(book written by J. V. Fesko, Westminster Seminary,CA) [Academic Dean, Professor of Systematic Theology and Historical Theology].
If you go to Fesko’s bio on Westminster’s website, he is quoted as follows:
What I Want to Instill in My Students
“A passion to proclaim Christ and him crucified in word and deed and to serve the church to the glory of Christ.”
We may well begin our example here. A proclamation to the unregenerate is assumed, but what Fesko is really talking about is the perpetual proclamation of the gospel within the church. This is because Reformed soteriology holds to the idea that Christians need perpetual re-justification (re-salvation). John Calvin makes no bones about this in his Institutes (3.14.11). Reformed soteriology also holds to the idea that this efficacious re-justification can only be found in the formal institutional church (4.15.4).
The excerpt sent follows:
Unlike Old Testament Israel who had the law written upon tablets of stone, we have the law written upon the tablets of our hearts. We also have the indwelling power of the Spirit enabling us to be obedient, even causing us to walk in God’s statutes, to borrow Ezekiel’s words. This hopefully alerts us to the important point that so many Christians miss–namely, the nature of our sanctification. The law does not produce godliness. The law only condemns. Obedience does not produce godliness. Obedience that is carried out in the power of the flesh fails every time. Rather, only the Holy Spirit produces his fruit in us and enables us to be obedient, to produce good works. In other words, in our sanctification, for our growth in godliness, we must seek the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit alone is both the source and the power of our sanctification, good works, and obedience.
We must therefore seek the power of the Holy Spirit through God’s appointed means: through the Word, preached, read and meditated upon; the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and prayer. So often people cut themselves off from the means of grace: moving away from the church, failing to attend church, or even cutting themselves off from the sacraments. To do so is to cut ourselves off from the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much could be discussed here, like the eschatological law/gospel train wreck of the first sentence, but we will move on to…
We also have the indwelling power of the Spirit enabling us to be obedient, even causing us to walk in God’s statutes, to borrow Ezekiel’s words.
First of all, Calvinists who know what they believe do not believe that the Holy Spirit does work within us and through us. They do not believe that the power is “indwelling,” and they know it. “Indwelling” is redefined, and “obedience” is also redefined as what the Reformed call, “new obedience.” What’s that? It is not an action we do, it is an action done to us by the Holy Spirit that we ONLY experience. Calvinism also adds the perfect obedience of Christ to the atonement, and that obedience is imputed to our lives by faith alone in order to keep ourselves saved. Nothing is going on within the believer at all, that would be works salvation because justification and sanctification are made to be the same thing. Yet, they use the “in” terminally in order to not unsettle the herd. Calvinists like John Piper make it clear that Reformed soteriology disavows any work by the Spirit within the believer:
This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel…When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.
In fact, one of the most popular terms among Calvinists in our day is, “the objective gospel outside of us,” or simply, the “objective gospel.” There is no need to be confused by these concepts; it is simply Gnosticism which teaches that material beings cannot know spiritual truth (the invisible). The manifestations of this philosophy always have an epistemology that births the wellbeing of the invisible world to the material world by way of experience. In Reformed theology, the epistemology is gospel contemplationism.
But the point here is that J. V. Fesko knows grade-A-well that “in” doesn’t mean “in.”
This hopefully alerts us to the important point that so many Christians miss–namely, the nature of our sanctification.
Here, Fesko will now define “sanctification.” This lays the groundwork for the rest of the theses that he wants to proffer. Unfortunately, most Christians do not have the discernment skills that would immediately qualify the definition of sanctification to prevent deception. Instead of drawing conclusions from the definition of the word, and how it is used in Scripture, Fesko wants to talk about its “nature.” The actual definition is skipped, and the word is defined by how it behaves, or its “nature.” Sanctification covers a wide spectrum of action, so Fesko can now attach any meaning to the word that he wants to at this point. He is skipping the actual definition, and making its “nature” the definition, and proceeding with the desired agenda.
This enables him to make an outrageous logical leap with the following:
The law does not produce godliness. The law only condemns. Obedience does not produce godliness. Obedience that is carried out in the power of the flesh fails every time. Rather, only the Holy Spirit produces his fruit in us and enables us to be obedient, to produce good works. In other words, in our sanctification, for our growth in godliness, we must seek the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit alone is both the source and the power of our sanctification, good works, and obedience.
The primary technique used in the above excerpt is #7, the Either/Or hermeneutic. But again, he skips a biblical definition of law, and its application, and redefines it as something that can only condemn. Therefore, there is EITHER the “power of the flesh,” OR the “power of the Spirit.” Notice how he uses the aforementioned techniques to say that the Holy Spirit obeys for us, and we only experience His obedience through realm manifestation, without actually saying it:
Rather, only the Holy Spirit produces his fruit in us [BY faith which is a conduit that enables us to experience works outside of us] and enables us to be obedient, to produce good works. In other words, in our sanctification, for our growth in godliness, we must seek the power of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit alone is both the source and the power of our sanctification, good works, and obedience.
Herein, “obedience” is redefined as “seeking.” If we “seek the power of the Holy Spirit,” the righteousness of Christ will be imputed to us by seeking alone (ie, faith alone/gospel meditation alone) and we will remain saved. So, how then do we seek?
We must therefore seek the power of the Holy Spirit through God’s appointed means: through the Word, preached, read and meditated upon; the sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper; and prayer. So often people cut themselves off from the means of grace: moving away from the church, failing to attend church, or even cutting themselves off from the sacraments. To do so is to cut ourselves off from the power of the Holy Spirit.
Any questions? The church is our gas station for receiving a refilling of our salvation gas tank through formal preaching, the sacraments, and church attendance. To replace seeking with obedience, or forsaking the assembly of the institutional church, we “cut ourselves off from the power of the Holy Spirit.” Fesko deliberately adds the word, “power” to imply Christian living more than actual salvation, but salvation is what’s being referred to for all practical purposes.
Calvinist communication is saturated with ancient brainwashing communication techniques. The discerning Christian does well to be educated in regard to them accordingly.
Horton’s Systematic Theology Adds To The Sonship/Gospel Sanctification Massive Subculture: Revised
[NOTE: This was written before I discovered that New Calvinism is in fact the same gospel that the Reformers taught. The resurgence movement began as COG in 1970, became Sonship circa 1986, Gospel Transformation in 2000, dubbed Gospel Sanctification by detractors in 2007, and finally New Calvinism in 2008. This was also written before I understood that orthodoxy is a part of spiritual caste in general].
“Gospel Sanctification, as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity” [Note also that I no longer equate “orthodoxy ” with truth per se].
[Further revision: much has been learned since this post, but the general idea is very accurate: the Neo-Calvinist movement is seeking to develop a subculture within American culture that will eventually, if all goes as planned, devour American culture as we know it. This is part and parcel with Calvinism’s dominion theology. This post submits a sketchy framework of useful categories under the general idea. For instance, one college that focuses strictly on the Neo-Calvinist vision is a far cry from the fact that this movement owns (in an intellectual capacity) most of the seminaries in America. Other categories could be added as well, e.g., Christian publishing ].
The Fix is now in. The false doctrine of the centrality of the objective gospel (COG) which found new life in Sonship Theology about thirty years ago—now has its own theology, hermeneutic, practical application, defined experience, ecumenical (inclusiveness) movement, history, college, counseling organization, missionary organization, Bible—and now, its own systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification (GS), as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity. It won’t be long; those who we minister to will have to be deprogrammed before we can help them, starting with convincing them that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from God as our authority for ministry and life. Not understanding GS beforehand will make any attempt to help people with the word of God—dead on arrival.
GS Theology
The movement started with a very powerful concept in the minds of its perpetrators. Supposedly, we grow spiritually by revisiting the gospel that saved us every day. Proponents were convinced (and still are) that this thesis stands alone as truth; therefore, all other propositions must bow to it.
The GS Hermeneutic
A literal interpretation of Scripture will continually contradict GS. So, the proponents have changed how we read/ interpret the Bible accordingly. The GS hermeneutic is an interpretive prism that will always yield results that make GS plausible. Unlike the rest of the elements (which are very contemporary), the hermeneutic (known as Biblical Theology or Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics) was borrowed from times past. It originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writings of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction. Graeme Goldsworthy tweaked the doctrine to facilitate COG, and today, Goldsworthy’s “Trilogy” is the pillar of interpretation within the movement.
Practical Application
The GS narrow approach to sanctification must be embellished and applicable to life in some way in order to be sold. This is Heart Theology, and was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary. In 1996, two former students of Powlison articulated Heart Theology in a book entitled, “How People Change.”
Defined Experience
John Piper seeks to articulate how Sonship is experienced via Christian Hedonism. Because GS makes our works and the work of the Spirit an either/or issue, someone needed to develop a thesis that explained how the difference can be ascertained. John Piper answered the call with the development of Christian Hedonism.
Ecumenical Bent
GS now encompasses any group that agrees with its primary view of plenary monergism and the synthesis of justification and sanctification. All other disciplines are seen as secondary and irrelevant to fellowship and joint ventures. The Gospel Coalition (holding national conferences on odd years, 2011, etc.), and T4G (Together For The Gospel, holding national conferences on even years) work together to promote GS/S while promoting inclusiveness among denominations and religions.
History
GS proponents claim a historical precedent dating back to Creation, and also claim to be the second part of the first Reformation. Of course, this is laughable. Sonship, the Antioch school, TGC, T4G, NCT, CH, and HT have no historical precedent prior to 1970. Many of the notable proponents of GS are associated in some way with the father of Sonship Theology, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Tim Keller and David Powlison were followers of Miller. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane are followers of David Powlison. Jerry Bridges attributes his view of the gospel to Miller as well.
College
The Antioch School of leadership training has GS as its foundation and basis for training. It is located in Ames, Iowa.
Counseling Organization
The upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition, which seeks to network other counseling organizations as well, is intimately associated with T4G and The Gospel Coalition. The who’s who of Gospel Sanctification sit on its governing board including David Powlison and Paul David Tripp.
Missionary Organization
It’s primary missionary organization was founded by the father of Gospel Sanctification / Sonship—Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Banner of Truth states the following in The Movement Called Sonship: “Miller encouraged New Life Presbyterian Church into originating the ‘World Harvest Mission’, a non-denominational missionary organization. Sonship became its main teaching vehicle.”
Bible
The English Standard Version (ESV) was first published by Crossway in 2001. Its vice president of editorial is Justin Taylor who also authors The Gospel Coalition Blog, the multimedia propaganda machine for GS doctrine. One of the translators was Wayne Grudem, also well known as a major proponent of GS doctrine. The ESV’s GS connection has made it the most purchased English Bible in the past ten years. The latest promotion of the ESV by Crossway, “Trusted: Trusted Legacy [a whopping ten years]; trusted By Leaders; Trusted For Life,” features an endorsement by the who’s who of GS doctrine.
The Complete Fix
With Michael Horton’s recent publication of “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way” (2011), the total fix is in place. The GS machine will now begin to move forward—rewriting and re-forming orthodox Christianity. I confidently predict that Horton’s book will be widely used in seminaries nationwide. Seminary students will be pumped into the local churches with a skewered view of truth—but using all of the same terminology that was formally orthodox.
What Can Be Done?
This doctrine thrives on the fact that Christians are theologically dumbed-down. If most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification (and they don’t), they are helpless against this false doctrine. If most Christians don’t realize the importance of understanding hermeneutics (and they don’t), they are even more helpless. Local churches need to start in-doctrine–ating their people.
paul
More on why New Calvinism Has Massive Appeal
“So what is the appeal of New Calvinism? Basically, five things….”
Mass appeal, rarely commendable in the Bible, is an earmark of New Calvinism. But why? As cited in another post, this quote from a New Calvinist organization reveals one primary reason:
What, then, is the subjective power of this message? Firstly, we find that there is real, objective freedom, the kind that, yes, can be experienced subjectively. We are freed from having to worry about the legitimacy of experiences; our claims of self-improvement are no longer seen as a basis of our witness or faith. In other words, we are freed from ourselves, from the tumultuous ebb and flow of our inner lives and the outward circumstances; anyone in Christ will be saved despite those things. We can observe our own turmoil without identifying with it. We might even find that we have compassion for others who function similarly. These fluctuations, violent as they might be, do not ultimately define us. If anything, they tell us about our need for a savior (David Zahl and Jacob Smith: Mockingbird blog).
This enables New Calvinists to boast an objective, factual gospel, while claiming that the objective gospel functions subjectively. In other words, the gospel (Christ and His works) is factual, but obtaining a deeper and deeper knowledge of those facts imputes those objective facts to our lives subjectively. This enables us to live our Christian lives by faith alone, while leaving the subjective results to God. Our primary goal is to contemplate the two things that saved us (the gospel): God’s holiness and our sinfulness (faith and repentance), and then as we go about living our lives, we don’t have to take anything that happens too seriously because it is all preordained by God.
Tragedy is a good thing because it testifies to our need for Christ; good works give us joy as we “experience” them, but we really don’t know whether they are in “our own efforts” or conducted by God. It’s subjective. According to Martin Luther, if we believe that we did the good work, that’s works salvation. If we attend our good works (as Christians) with fear that it could be us who did it and not God, that’s venial sin and not mortal sin. Hence, part of the New Calvinist daily repentance regiment is asking forgiveness for good works that we have done just in case it was us who did them. All in all, it insulates from responsibility for sin, and enables us to detach ourselves from negative emotions. Joy is a result of God’s goodness and good works. Tragedy reminds us of what we deserve and what God has saved us from—it’s just more good news!
Further appeal can be seen in a recent post by Dr. Ed Welch of CCEF. He starts off with the usual metaphysical curve-ball that seems to come in straight with the idea that our faith is objective truth. Then when he gets us swinging at that pitch, it curves with….
Faith is a way of seeing
Scripture is also fond of describing faith as the way to see God’s realities. ( By: Ed Welch Topics: Faith Published: July 17, 2013 http://www.ccef.org/blog/what-faith).
Welch continues to expound on how the subjective facts of the gospel leads to subjective “reality”:
With the naked eye we can see the physical world, but faith—which comes by hearing the word of God—allows us to “see” the Creator of the physical world (Heb. 11:3). Faith allows us to see that Jesus is the Word, the Son of God, the Rescuer of the world.
With a twisting of 2Corinthians 4:18, Welch, like all New Calvinists, attempts to make the case that the physical world isn’t what really needs to be “seen” because the physical can be seen and therefore is not of faith. Hence, the Bible is to be used to see the Savior only, leading to a faith that enables us to see beyond the physical. In other words, borrowing his terminology, the Bible enables us to “see” beyond creation to the Creator Himself. Of course, this is merely hanging Bible verses on Plato’s Theory of Forms.
Welch then explains, in the same post, a technique that can be added to Bible induced gospel contemplationism:
One way to use this perspective on faith is to pray with another, “Lord, open our eyes. Help us to see what is really happening.” And then ask at the end of your time together, “What did we see?”
Here at the Potter’s House, what we study, what we read, is what you get. To the contrary, in this technique also promoted by John Piper and many other New Calvinists, the Bible speaks to you, presumably through the Spirit, subjectively, following a gospel-centered contemplation of the Scriptures. The plain sense of Scripture can now be traded for subjective experience. Apparently emboldened by the mindlessness of American Christians, Welch further explains this approach with the following:
Another way to use this is to encourage others to live with their eyes closed. Let me explain. The world that is available to our physical senses can dominate our spiritual sight. Physical trials, fiscal uncertainty, the safety of those we love, the intrusion of hard pasts—this whirlwind can blind us to the spiritual realities that are deeper and longer lasting. So in a sense, we need to close our eyes to the circumstances of life, so we can open them to hope. It might happen like this:
“What do you see?” ‘I see the rejection of my spouse.’ “Close your eyes, and keep looking. Look around with eyes of faith. Now what do you see?” ‘I see the rejection of my spouse.’ “Okay, keep your eyes closed and look at the world through the lenses of Ephesians 1, now what do you see?” ‘I see . . . nothing.’ “No problem, we just need help. Let’s pray, which, in itself, is an expression of how we see by faith.”
The important point is that you are closing your eyes—not as a form of denial—but as a way to see more.
Welch then completely mocks discernment by suggesting that people are saved by reading Christian mystics like CS Lewis:
Back to the story, my friend became cynical toward his friend’s beliefs, but he was still a seeker. Soon after he graduated from high school, a co-worker gave him Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. On the very first page he began to “see.” After taking the next eight hours to read through the book, he knew he wanted to follow Jesus, though he didn’t know what that meant, and he did not know one other Christian he could ask.
So what is the appeal of New Calvinism? Basically, five things:
1. It enables people to deflect the negative emotions of life and trade them for joy by disconnecting from the physical world. This idea is sanctified by eradicating all value of earthly things (and people) for Christ.
2. It gives a simplistic answer for everything. All events in life are to either glorify God or show us our worthlessness.
3. Escape from responsibility and accountability. “I sinned? Well duh, that’s what sinners do.”
4. We already know what every verse in the Scripture is about, and by meditating on that, we can have a subjective result of our own choosing.
5. It eliminates the hard work of studying and wrestling with truth. Every verse is about Jesus, and the results are automatic. Also, hard work in spiritual matters is works salvation. As Calvin and Luther believed, sanctification is represented by the Sabbath rest. If you work, you die; hence, no work is more good news!
6. The Reformed, “power of the keys.” This is the idea that whatever Reformed elders bind on earth will be bound in heaven whether right or wrong. Hence, by merely staying in the good graces of your local neighborhood elders, you’re guaranteed to be in the graces of God. You’re in because the elders say you’re in.
http://apprising.org/2012/01/06/beth-moore-and-john-piper-lead-lectio-divina-lite-at-passion-2012/
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment