Tags
John Piper, Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, Michael Horton, new calvinism, Tullian Tchividjian, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Sonship theology, SDA
Paul Dohse of Pauls Passing Thoughts has an important, ongoing service to the Church, namely, exposing New Calvinism (NC) for what it truly is: A movement rooted in Seventh-Day Adventism; a complex, mind-boggling, twisting of Scripture in order to systematize so-called Reformation doctrine with the false premise that it was once lost and is now being recovered. Hello? It was never lost to begin with!
I have long been suspect of New Calvinists teachings, particularly with the popular concepts of Gospel contemplation, Gospel sanctification, antinomian leanings and really, just a whole hosts of doctrinal errors which, once combined with charismatic doctrine have led men like Mark Driscoll, John Piper (the ‘elder statesman’ of New Calvinism), Chandler, and many others to claim extra-biblical revelations, visions, the public practicing of mystical methods such as Lectio Divina, and more.
New Calvinism is a fascinating movement with a fascinating history which Dohse covers in volume one of his book The Truth About New Calvinism: It’s History, Doctrine, and Character, a book I highly recommend. Since its publication, Dohse has uncovered yet more depth of NC’s history after further research.
Recently, Paul has written a summary of sorts of the main tenets and elements of New Calvinism. I cannot encourage you enough to read this article, as well asget the book! – JT
Here’s a quick look at the main tenets and elements of New Calvinism….
The Core Four of the Australian Forum
In 1970, a think tank was initiated to systematize the “lost Reformation doctrine of justification.” The project was the brainchild of Robert Brinsmead, a Seventh-day Adventist theologian….
The Unifying Central Crux
And all agreed on one thing: the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone had been lost because of subjectivism, ie., the Bible being interpreted through personal experience. They all agreed that Soren Kierkegaard’s existentialist theology was indicative, and at the very crux of what caused Reformation doctrine to be lost.
THE CURE
Tenet 1: COGOUS (Centrality of the Gospel Outside of Us)
Brinsmead’s first theological frame that launched Progressive Adventism (the “Awakening” movement) taught that Christ stands in the judgment for us as opposed to the traditional Adventist view that Christians are enabled by God to obtain perfection in order to stand in the judgment.
A. Element 1 of COGOUS: Gospel Sanctification
The term “Gospel Sanctification,” was coined by this ministry in 2004 and picked up by others. COGOUS split into two notable theologies in the 80’s: New Covenant Theology and Sonship Theology. Both endured a violent push back among Baptists and Presbyterians to the point of going underground. “Sonship Theology” became “Gospel Transformation.”
B. Element 2 of COGOUS: Gospel Contemplationism
Spiritual contemplationism is certainly nothing new. Spiritual growth via contemplating the works of Christ, and using the Bible to do so can be found among the earliest Adventist theologians, especially Ellen White (according to citations noted by Paxton in The Shaking of Adventism).
Tenet 2: Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics
Starting with Gabler, this hermeneutic (method of interpretation) makes the Bible a historical narrative about the gospel. Through deeper and deeper knowledge of the gospel, we are “wowed” and “motivated by gratitude.” This makes the Bible a perfect tool for contemplationism rather than instruction and propositional truth.
Tenet 3: New Covenant Theology
Jon Zens coined the phrase “New Covenant Theology” in 1981. Brinsmead and Zens worked together closely on how law and covenants relate to COGOUS. New Calvinists usually stay aloof from any association to NCT because of its direct link to Zens and the Forum. Though New Calvinists are not shy about playing the “all truth is God’s truth”card, they would rather not have to explain how their doctrine was contrived by a Seventh-day Adventist who is now purported to be an atheist.
Tenet 4: Heart Theology
This theology was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change which forms the basis of counseling curriculum at Westminster Seminary. The doctrine is based on Sonship Theology
Tenet 5: Christian Hedonism
This was concocted by John Piper in the 80’s as an important addition to COGOUS. Though Piper avoids any connections to the Forum like the Bubonic Plague, he showed his hand and specific allegiance to COGOUS when he wrote an article on a series of lectures that Graeme Goldsworthy did at Southern Seminary.
Christian Hedonism is how COGOUS is experienced. It’s the complete package. It is the first complete theological system for let go and let God theology ever devised in church history. It is powerful, and is a latter-day antinomian blitzkrieg of biblical proportions.
But the gigs up….
Several tenants Paul claims as definitive of New Calvinism are not exclusively nor definitively such. Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics for example – properly understood, is the right view of Scripture. The Bible is God’s revelation to man of Himself, our condition, and His promises, plans, and accomplishments to reconcile His chosen ones to Himself. That this hermeneutic may be misused by some doesn’t make it a tell-tale for their erroneous theology.
Key words “properly understood”, and yes, it is abused by some, and in the case of New Calvinists, the way it is used is horribly wrong.
Agreed whole-heartedly!
I appreciate the work that Paul has done on this subject.
Manfred,
“Several”? Nevertheless, I think I make it clear that Robert Brinsmead’s COGOUS launched NC and other things where borrowed in an attempt to make it “consistent with other truth.” Brinsmead himself acknowledges this, but claims originality on COGOUS which is the undisputed backbone and core doctrine of New Calvinism.
This core is the source of NC distinctions such as the total depravity of the saints, denial of the new birth, faith defined as being the offering of Christ’s works in sanctification–not ours, eliminating repentance as part of the original gospel presentation, deep repentance, new obedience, repentance of good works, and a host of other phraseologies. Sure, with this, you’re going to get everything but the kitchen sink thrown into the free-for-all, but in regard to what is original with NC, “several”?
Furthermore, if NO COGOUS, then no NCT. And no Christian Hedonism. And no Gospel Sanctification. And no Sonship Theology. And no Heart Theology. So, what do you mean by “several” ? Besides, there are only five major ones.
Moreover: “Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics for example – properly understood, is the right view of Scripture.” You are dead wrong on that.
First, “the” needs to be removed from your sentence because it is in the definitive, which makes RHH the only right way to approach Scripture.
Second, there is only ONE right way to approach the Scriptures: God’s superintended truth and revelation to man. ALL other ideas are to come from that approach–period!
Third, your wrong approach leads to your erroneous thinking: ” The Bible is God’s revelation to man of Himself, our condition, and His promises, plans, and accomplishments to reconcile His chosen ones to Himself.” What you have written sounds good until you get to the transitional phrase “to reconcile.” This makes all of the previous subjects you state the sole purpose of the last sentence which again, is dead wrong. The Bible has just as much to say, and truth be known, much more, about kingdom living and “the ministry of the word” than “the ministry reconciliation.”
Fourthly, RHH was conceived in modernistic and neo-orthadox theologies. This is just plain historical fact. My research indicates that it was considered to be the perfect formula to find a middle ground between liberal theologians and fundamentalists. When it didn’t work, neo-orthadox theologians were completely befuddled. Most contemporary church historians pinpoint its demise in 1961 by the writings of a couple of aggressive apologists. It would appear that the Forum resurrected RHH is a big way. Acceptance of RHH has absolutely exploded since 1970, and who is its foremost spokesman? Graeme Goldsworthy, one of the core four of the Australian Forum.
Manfred, the Forum SAVED the one tenet you mention among “several.”
I don’t mean to be harsh, but I witness the mayhem that this doctrine is foisting upon the church daily. It is an evil blight that must be articulated, identified, destroyed, and its evil propagators must be rejected and brought to shame. Credentials and evil are not mutually exclusive, when will we finally learn this?
I don’t want to minimize the horrors of this doctrine with the following trite-by-comparison example, but it is nonetheless apt:
Sally, who’s name I have changed, was an unbeliever, and obese. After she gave her life to Christ, she decided to loose weight because she feared it was an obstacle to her witness. And she was very successful, loosing well over a hundred pounds through all of the necessary disciplines. She carried a picture of her former self (with a Bible verse printed on it that had been the motto of her endeavor). The contrast had to be seen to be believed.
Then Sally became a New Calvinist while her passive husband neglected his duties as the pastor of that home. Sure, sure, she was outwardly beautiful, but inside, she was nothing but a…. and here we go again, “Pharisee.” You see, Sally only dealt with the outward, and not the….and here we go again, “idols in her heart that prompted her to love food more than God.”
Well, Sally is obese again. But that is ok, because at least she’s not a Pharisee.
This same approach is making today’s church fat and happy while it sweeps the carnage under the rug and assassinates its opponents.
Who will stand against it?
paul
Paul – methinks you think too highly of your understanding and your attempt to tell me what I’m thinking. I abhor New Calvinism, for instance, but believe Redemptive Historical Exposition is how Jesus and the Apostles taught the Scriptures. What else does one do with Luke 24:13ff and Acts 8:26ff? Rightly understood and pursued, RHE is the story of God’s special revelation we call the Bible. The Scriptures foretold and revealed Christ. That’s the Alpha and the Omega.
Manfred,
You’re the one who used the word “several.” I’m sorry, what part of that word did I misunderstand in my attempt to tell you what you are thinking?
What to do with Luke 24:13ff and Acts 8:26ff? Well, I don’t want to think too much of what I know, so I will cite the Westminster faculty from their 1946 classic, “The Infallible Word”:
[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 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.”
[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].
“….is how Jesus and the Apostles taught the Scriptures.”
Manfred, I’m always willing to learn, so please answer these questions posed by another blogger here: http://goo.gl/p2tZu . His questions are the following:
[1] What exactly is the “apostles’ hermeneutic”? [2] What exactly is this pattern that modern-day interpreters are to follow? [3] What specific hermeneutical principles are modeled by the NT writers that should guide contemporary interpretation? [4] Can they be stated propositionally? [5] If so, what are they? [6] If not, why not? [7] Should these hermeneutical principles be applied consistently to all of Scripture, or only certain parts of it? [8] If only certain parts, which parts, [9] and why only those parts?
You can settle the argument with good answers to these questions.
As an aside, here are three articles that I have written on RHH:
http://wp.me/pmd7S-ho
http://wp.me/pmd7S-sf
http://wp.me/pmd7S-DO
Paul – I think you paint with a very broad brush, damning many for the errors of a few in a narrow field. If you’ve read Bryan Chappel’s Christ Centered Preaching or Gospel Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy or Him We Proclaim by Dennis Johnson you wold have a fairly good idea of the Apostles’ hermeneutic – even if you despise one or more of those authors. If you read the Bible, rather than Paedobaptist theology or refer people to dispensationalists, you would also have fairly good idea.
Not every verse is about Jesus, but the types and shadows that fill the Old Testament point to and partially reveal Him in every book and most chapters.
Biblical Theology is a valuable perspective, no matter what you think of Vos. Seeing how the redemptive plan of God was unveiled by Scripture over time is a good thing – no matter what one thinks of Vos. As a Reformed Baptist, I disagree with the authors I cited above – and Vos – on a number of issues. That does not keep some of their work from having value in kingdom work.
I do not see us resolving our differences here on Joel’s blog. I am glad to talk with you no more.
People should really read, or re-read, Dr. Peter Master’s original article which shined the spotlight on New Calvinism in Sword & Trowel magazine. It’s effects then could be more readily discerned because its doctrines were not yet revealed. But in recent years their teaching has become more and more bold and askew, and Paul’s research demonstrates not only some curious connections (even if they cannot be connected so tightly by the associations revealed) but especially their tenets, which cannot be denied upon examination.
“Paul – I think you paint with a very broad brush, damning many for the errors of a few in a narrow field.”
Your kidding, right? RHH was the PRIMARY THEME of 2011 TGC conference in Chicago where 70 of the who’s who of NC showed up and delivered sermons and taught seminars. In a video promo, DA Carson said that the goal of the conference was to “get to Christ in all of the Scriptures.”
“If you’ve read Bryan Chappel’s Christ Centered Preaching or Gospel Centered Hermeneutics by Graeme Goldsworthy or Him We Proclaim by Dennis Johnson you would have a fairly good idea of the Apostles’ hermeneutic – even if you despise one or more of those authors”
Sorry, I have only suffered through two of those linguistic drones that do not answer any of the nine questions presented by the aforementioned blogger.
“If you read the Bible, rather than Paedobaptist theology or refer people to dispensationalists, you would also have fairly good idea.”
Where is any data to back your position? Your answer to almost all of my objections and propositions is to demean me, except for an unqualified statement about two Bible verses. This is reminiscent of what happened over at Peter Lumpkins.com where several NC answered my questions with insults. One of them even posted an article attacking me personally. I told him to pull it down or I would educate his congregation in regard to what he was teaching. He pulled it down–what does that tell you? He knew he couldn’t defend his position to his own people.
“Not every verse is about Jesus, but the types and shadows that fill the Old Testament point to and partially reveal Him in every book and most chapters.”
Exactly, and I have been told by a notable New Calvinist face to face that those other chapters are not relevant. His almost word for word quote was: “Christ must be preached, but you may have to cover three or four chapters in each message to do that.” In other words, finding Christ in every message dictates what is taught. But for crying out loud, if you’re going to approach the Scriptures that way, at least look for the other two members of the Trinity as well. Is that too much to ask?
Paul David Tripp states in HPC that ALL Scripture, especially imperatives, “must be seen in their GOSPEL CONTEXT.”
“Biblical Theology is a valuable perspective, no matter what you think of Vos. Seeing how the redemptive plan of God was unveiled by Scripture over time is a good thing – no matter what one thinks of Vos. As a Reformed Baptist, I disagree with the authors I cited above – and Vos – on a number of issues. That does not keep some of their work from having value in kingdom work.”
Your not in agreement with the apostle Paul on this. Who here doesn’t read their Bible? It makes me wonder. Paul said: “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” The dispensationalists you disparage even have that much common sense, ie., Hal Lindsey: “Satan will use a whole lake to hide a pint of poison.” Charles Woodbridge, in his exhortation to the church to separate from false teachers, noted that rat poison has cornmeal in it.
Like all New Calvinists, you want folks to dig around in rat poison to find the cornmeal. But again, I must wonder who is reading their Bible here. You are saying that any truth, no matter what it is mixed with, is “valuable.” But Peter stated that we only grow by “the PURE milk of the word.”
“I do not see us resolving our differences here on Joel’s blog. I am glad to talk with you no more.”
Excuse me, but my goal is not to resolve any differences with you. Here is my goal:
“The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.”
Manfred,
You have nothing to offer except spiffy soundbites (“methinks”), generalizations, canned New Calvinist responses, character assassination, and clothing yourself in 17th century word choices/order to make yourself appear to be cut from Reformed cloth (“I am glad to talk with you no more”). The feeling is mutual.
But in regard to RHH, I am encouraged that it was put to death in 1961 by the writings of apologists. And I see clouds of hope everywhere that NC will have to start defending itself. And with what? They have nothing but a lot of explaining to do about their very short history and the idea that they are the torchbearers of the lost Reformation. Good luck with that.
Pingback: J.C. Ryle’s Fear for the Future: New-Fangled Terms and Phrases in Teaching Sanctification « The Reformed Traveler
So what are you trying to say? (I speak as a layperson.)
Are you telling me to stop delighting in Christ (Christian hedonism)? Are you telling me to stop interpreting the Bible in light of Christ (New Covenant Theology)?
Sure, someone like Peter Masters (thanks for pointing out the article William) points out to worldliness among Christians, but you need to speak the truth in love.
(Again, I speak as layman.) You speak over my head. You should define what you more of your terms.
New Covenant Theology (NCT) I am aware of though relatively new to the topic. However, if you actually read the writings of an NCT person like John Reisinger, you will see him constantly referring to historical theology and discover that it impossible for NCT to be the by-product of some obscure Seventh-day adventist person’s teaching.
If you have a case to make, please show it to me through the pages of scripture. Meanwhile, I will keep delighting in Christ, I will keep interpreting all of the scriptures in light of Christ, and take the warning to avoid worldliness.