The New Calvinism v. the Simplicity of the Gospel
By Cynthia Kunsman
Actually, it’s been around for awhile – about as long as I have, actually, but before I was old enough to read about it.
I don’t really pay much attention to the neo-Calvinists that move in the Louisville Baptist-anointed circles, though I am apparently known as one of their more outspoken critics. In following the ideology of misogyny in Evangelicalism, I traced much of it back to them and therefore had to address it. Though much goes back to an out of context interpretation of John Knox on the Presbyterian side which is more consistent with my experience, the influence of the bunk borrowed from the Baptist misogyny within all of Evangelicalism cannot be ignored.
Some suggest that most of what passes for Calvinism these days doesn’t even qualify as real Calvinism, especially from those in the Gospel Coalition type of camp. Paul Dohse has been busy writing about this subject and recently released a book about how two aberrant Anglicans and a Seventh Day Adventist from Australia were invited to Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia in the late sixties, detailing how their subtly twisted doctrine has resulted in the errors of what passes for Calvinism today. Actually, most of the controversies concerning doctrine among the Reformed can be traced back to the Australian Forum in some way, or from the Redemptive Historical Method which preceded them. The group launched some provocative “new” ideas at that time, and what they actually accomplished was a remerging of justification and sanctification, but they marketed it as Reformation Theology.
.
.
The short version of things
J. G. Vos became very interested in the significance of Christ’s history and participated a movement that encouraged people to find a message of Redemption in every Bible passage, relating it to the history of Christ. Goldsworthy, an aberrant Anglican, developed a whole esoteric sounding theology about the “holy history of Christ,” he worked along side Brinsmead, a Seventh Day Adventist (SDA), and it resulted in most of the errors and controversies we’ve seen among the Reformed in the past decade or two. Most of what Jon Zens teaches came from Brinsmead, and most of what Piper teaches sounds just like Goldsworthy. (See addendum note below.) Piper’s preaching quietism through his “beholding as a way of becoming,” a form of Christian mysticism enjoining passive contemplation and the beatific annihilation of the will. And remember the controversy within Federal Vision about the significance of Christ’s miracles to the believer, another tributary of this discussion of the “holy history”? But they don’t tell you about the foundational soteriology of these men.
In some shared disdain for Lutheran theology, they explain how salvation really happens in their old publication called “The Present Truth” which was once staggeringly popular at Westminster. (Take note that “the present truth” is a doctrine in SDA church, invented by the Whites. It was also the name of their first SDA publication in the 19th Century.) In a discourse that switches back and forth from Catholic Theology into Prostestant statements so many times that I gave me theological whiplash, they explain the process. First, the believer is “caught up in the holy history” of Christ and “replaces his history” with Christ’s. As a result of the change in the person who has been assimilated or has assimilated Jesus and is changed, it is then that God decides to bestow the grace of justification on a man because he’s suddenly become acceptable to God. Sorry, folks. This just became justification by works, and sanctification and justification become the same thing.
.
.
All I can say is “holy hand grenade of Antioch!”
This is the more subtle reason why Piper and Keller and Bridges and Tchividjianand others preach the gospel to
The "Fetus" of the New Calvinism from Present Truth
themselves every day which I personally consider to be different that morning devotions or contrition over sin as a New Creation in Christ. This is why Piper and Mahaney do all of their histrionic weeping over their poor, sinful state, because they are still subject to it, giving it power. New life in Christ for them is dependent on daily infused grace and justification, because God forbid that a man be a benefactor of some life changing internal experience that suggests that he maybe might have played some role in his own salvation on an experiential level. Where’s the score card? You need one to keep track of all of the intricacies they’ve added into the simple message of faith in the Gospel. The Australian Forum, the source of this stuff, also goes on to describe salvation as a 13 Step Process. (Can anyone see the flashing red light of “Gothardism” going off in my head?)
I also wonder about how broad the influence of Brinsmead, the SDA, has been within New Covenant Theology (NCT). I stumbled upon Paul Dohse’s material after learning that Baptists who follow NCT embrace other SDA doctrines that have nothing to do with supporting how New Testament believers relate to the Old Testament laws. One man believes in soul sleep (note the comments), and another believes that Jesus is really Michael the Archangel and deleted all of the negative comments which you can find here. I’m not so concerned about the former, but identifying Jesus as Michael challenges the Doctrine of God and invalidates the doctrinal distinctions that separate orthodox Christianity from theological cults. Is this more fruit, a generation later, of the influence of the Australian Forum? I think that most reasonable people should consider the question. I’m still reeling over the title of the Australian Forum’s magazine, named directly after an SDA doctrine. Somehow, that got by the brightest and best at Westminster? Yet, it explains so much regarding all of the controversies and problems among the Reformed. What other crazy theological schemes have I ended up supporting in all earnest over the course of my life?
.
.
The Truth About the New Calvinism
You can read more at Paul’s Passing Thoughts blog and in his book about the New Calvinism and decide for yourself. I spent the better part of a week, day and night, trying to disprove Paul’s thesis. I have to agree with him at this point and turned up some more corroborating evidence that he didn’t even know about at the time. The element of his observations that most impressed me was how greater understanding of the teachings of Goldsworthy has helped me understand why most of these New Calvinists don’t seem to make any practical sense to me. They’re preaching a new version of quietism, and their theology is not all that different from what Gothard teaches.
People need to think about what they’re taking in and they need to compare it with Scripture. Are we told this stuff plainly in Scripture, or are ministers trying to sell ideas and books to make a living through “ministry”? Should we really be “branding” the teachings of the Word in postmodern fashion? Sadly, I think that this desire to profit from the sale of books and make a living from these kinds of efforts has been a significant influence in the development of these “new” ideas. Everyone must have a twist and an edge and a brand to be successful. But there is really nothing new under the sun.
Faith in Christ shouldn’t be that difficult. It’s my belief that many of these men are actually ignorant to what they’re actually teaching, just like I was ignorant to some of the junk theology I’ve followed in the past. But… woe! These men must answer for so much.
But what do I know? I’m just a woman, and my gifts and insights are secondary and ineffective in the New Calvinism. But then, I’m not a “New Calvinist.”
In response to several inquiries I’ve received, some people misunderstand my purpose in noting that examples of John Piper and Jon Zens in such close association as two students and advocates of Calvinism who I believe were influenced by a common source. Some have misunderstood this reference as a claim that Piper and Zens teach the same doctrine. I thought it might be helpful to add this clarification from one of several emails I’ve written this morning on the subject:
But I fear, lest by any means,
as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty,
so your minds should be corrupted
from the simplicity that is in Christ.
11Feb12 Addendum:
In response to several inquiries I’ve received, some people misunderstand my purpose in noting that examples of John Piper and Jon Zens in such close association as two students and advocates of Calvinism who I believe were influenced by a common source. Some have misunderstood this reference as a claim that Piper and Zens teach the same doctrine. I thought it might be helpful to add this clarification from one of several emails I’ve written this morning on the subject:I did not state and did not mean to imply that Piper and Zens teach the same doctrine. In the context of the paragraph, I spoke to the source of error introduced by aberrant doctrine into Presbyterian academics. Mine was a statement that both Piper and Zens were inspired by the Australian Forum, individuals who were invited to Westminster in the late ’60s and early ’70s. The forum was comprised of three individuals, Goldsworthy, Paxton, and Brinsmead. While agreeing on a very confusing doctrine concerning justification and merited grace (through assimilating Christ’s history and denying one’s own personal history to become acceptable to God), Goldsworthy and Brinsmead contributed different things to the Australian Forum. Piper and Zens merely capitalized independently from the different things each man contributed.
Goldsworthy, the Anglican, liked the teachings of Vos and added his error into the hobby horse of the redemptive history method. Piper agrees with Goldsworthy’s ideas about the “holy history of Christ.” It surely seems to me to have colored everything he believes, resulting in a very Roman Catholic-like merging of justification and sanctification, something external and objective which infuses into a believer. Piper picked up on the justification problems that Goldsworthy taught, but from what I gather, Piper remained committed to Covenant Theology’s stronger connection to the Old Testament system which views the Abraham as the foundation of the Church. (For more information, please refer to this comparison of Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology.)
Zens derived different things from the forum and used Brinsmead’s ideas from SDA to create his own alternate theological system to provide an alternative to both Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. Zens rejected Covenant Theology’s connection to the Old Testament system by way of SDA doctrine that he gleaned from Brinsmead. If you read Zens’ work on NCT, he quotes Brinsmead extensively and more than any other single person. Even the last email I received from him a couple of months ago featured a quote from Brinsmead. It had to be an old quote, because it’s my understanding that Brinsmead transitioned all the way out of any type of Christianity some time ago.
To his credit, I have not noted that Jon Zens references Goldworthy’s errors concerning justification and sanctification. I am, however, concerned that Zens advocates a belief in soul sleep which is another doctrine associated with SDA and its progenitors, though this doctrine is far less critical than the concept of an external and objective gospel which merges justification and sanctification. Piper’s teachings argue against an inner transformation which bestows a believer with the Spirit’s power and discernment to resist sin. If Zens teaches anything like this doctrine, I’m unaware of it.
I hope that helps. Paul Dohse explores this topic in greater depth on his blog and in his book which I encouraged people to seek out for more information. There’s so much information available in those sources, I cannot do them justice in a single blog post.
Addressing only the doctrinal errors associated with the objective, infused gospel concept at this point, you may also find additional information at the new Coalition Against New Calvinism website.
Filed under: 1 Tagged: | Australian Forum, Coalition against new calvinism, Gothardism, justification, Paul Dohse, quietism, salvation, Sanctification, SDA doctrines, The Gospel Coalition
Good morning Jo!
I just wanted to stop by and say hi and that I hope you have a really good day. I have nothing to say on this matter other than I’m reading this book right now by Arthur Pink and it’s been very enlightening and maybe explains why there is so much subtle error going around. I don’t need to list examples here…you are all too well aware of it all. Anyway, if I could put the link here, it is called Studies on saving faith. I remember asking God a few years ago how we would know if something is false when on the surface, it seems ok. Well…you will know them by their fruit was the answer I believe He gave me. It’s easy to look legit on the outside and many many do. If you get a chance to take a break from all this saddness, try giving this a read for a while. It talks about that very narrow gate and straight road as opposed to the path of destruction and what exactly is saving faith as well as how it is twisted in this day and age…always has been. A real toe stepper and a real eye opener.
http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Saving_Faith/index.htm
Good morning and thank you! Oh yea, the guy who said, “The great majority of the preachers are men-pleasers, and carefully do they trim their sails to the breezes of popular opinion. They are paid to speak “smooth things” and not those which will disturb, to soothe consciences rather than search them. That which is unpalatable, mournful, solemn, dread-inspiring, is sedulously avoided, and attractive, cheerful, and comforting subjects are substituted in their stead.”
Well this is interesting to say the least , my wife [ though herself not an SDA ] maintained a friendship with the Brinsmeads, and as for myself , I recall Goldsworthy being a regular preacher at our Reformed church in the 70′s . What is news to me though is that he was/is an anglican , and not the Presbyterian that I had been led to believe he was. Despite their many failings , one thing that the Reformed hierachy did excel at was ” guarding the pulpit” and I’m finding it hard to believe that they allowed on a regular basis , an anglican to come in and preach . I dare say that no one was aware of what Goldsworthy and co had been upto at this time or previously . Evidently , quite a bit. What I find even stranger than fiction is what was he doing befriending an SDA of all people and rewriting the book on justification.
Yes, you must be keeping a keen eye on all of this information, Ray. You and Paul Dohse should get together for a nice long chat!
Hi RT: Here is an interesting example of the contortion of New Calvinists:
http://betweenthetimes.com/2012/02/09/the-baptist-bogeyman/comment-page-2/#comment-20092
Mr. Setzer unapologetically depicts himself a Purpose Driven, Emerging, New Calvinistic Baptist, but only after stating that the SBC has made peace with the Purpose Driven mess and the Emergent heresy.
Here’s to praying that he’s wrong on all accounts.
One quibble now that I’ve reread the whole post:
I think the characterization of the historical-redemptive model may be worth further investigation by your authors for several reasons. While it is true that the emphasis of the historical-redemptive hermeneutic moves away from seeing past saints primarily as Godly character examples (let’s face it, there is at least as much to resist in the history of our predecessors as there is to model), a proper use of the historical-redemptive model does not preclude application or a call for obedience.
For instance, let’s consider the teaching of John Owen. Owen is perhaps most well-known in our day for his writings on the Mortification of Sin in believers and the believer’s active faith in resisting tempation. HOWEVER, the work considered his magnum opus by nearly every scholar is his commentary on The Hebrews, in which he lays out in 7 breathtaking volumes the most thoroughly historical-redemtive theology I’ve ever studied.
Here is an excerpt from the publisher’s describion of a condensed version of Owen’s commentary on The Hebrews:
“The author of Hebrews wanted his audience to know and understand one truth: Christ is superior, and therefore, so is Christianity. He demonstrates this by comparing the imperfect old covenant with the perfect new covenant. The person of Christ is better than prophets and angels, His priesthood is greater than that of Melchizedek and the line of Aaron, and His power within the believer’s life is incomparable to previous saints of old. Between these contrasts he exhorts the readers to persevere in their faith, be obedient, grow in their understanding, and not miss the grace of God. The lessons and admonitions of Hebrews have intensely practical application for all readers—then and now.”
I would be really interested in trying to learn why the historical-redemptive hermeneutic approach is receiving so much push back on this site, giving that I’ve only really encountered the push back before from ppl associated with Federal Vision, dominionism, patriarchal movements, quiverfull, etc., etc..
Thanks for letting me post!
I wish I could capture the point of all that…
Hello JR, appreciate your comments.
If I may, I’ll point to this info speaking of one of the tenets of New Calvinism, What Exactly is New Calvinism? Its Five Major Tenets and Their Sources
Keeping in mind the root of this historical redemptive hermeneutics of New Calvinism:
CHART
Born 4 Battle, since I bookended my comments quite clearly, it should not be such a hard labor to capture my point: I do not understand why The Reformed Traveler has a problem with the historical-redemptive hermeneutic approach. In between the bookends, I used John Owen as one historical example of why the pushback against the historical-redemptive hermeneutic is unwarranted.
There, was that so hard, actually?
JR,
Perhaps I’m just too ordinary a guy to get so deep into the hermaneutical woods. I’m obviously not as theological astute as yourself and will probably remain this way. I do believe that some of the New Calvinism critics paint with too broad a brush. I think that might be evidenced in their going after solidly reformed men, and rather gracelessly at that. I am not defending or condemning anyone, just expressing my feelings.
Born, let’s paint with this brush. Does this site look familiar to you? The Present Truth Magazine
Do you know who these folks are?
Reminder, please no insults to other commenters or making the article’s content secondary and the tone/language primary. Thanks Born.
Hi, Reformed Traveler,
Yes, I spent quite a bit of time reading Mr. Dohse’s article and viewed the chart. However, I will reiterate that I believe it wrong to equate the Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic model with the root of New Calvinism, unless you wish to trace “New Calvinism” back to John Owen and John Calvin. Of course, that is ridiculous, since would actually be “Old Calvinism”, ce n’est pas?
Here is more from Owen:
http://www.mctsowensboro.org/2010/11/two-hermeneutical-principles-utilized-by-john-owen/
Here is Calvin:
“We ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. By the Scriptures, it is well known, is here meant the Old Testament; for it was not in the Gospel that Christ first began to be manifested, but, having received testimony from the Law and Prophets, he was openly exhibited in the Gospel”….”This is what we should in short seek in the whole of Scripture: truly to know Jesus Christ, and the infinite riches that are comprised in him and are offered to us by him from God the Father” (Calvin, Preface to the New Testament).
and in The Insitutes:
“Accordingly, at the beginning when the first promise of salvation was given to Adam (Gen. 3:15) it glowed like a feeble spark. Then, as it was added to, the light grew in fullness, breaking forth increasingly and shedding its radiance more widely. At last- – when all the clouds were dispersed- -Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, fully illumined the whole earth.” (Institutes, 2.10.20).
That’s Old Calvinism.
Don’t misunderstand me; I agree with Mr. Dohse’s concerns about some of the issues that New Calvinism is presenting. I simply do not think he can lay the blame for the root of the problem at the feet of the Historical-Redemptive hermeneutic. That has been present in Calvinism from the start. Thank you for letting me comment and for considering my input.
I had a lot to say, having done a bit of actual investigating of the 2011 ‘kerfuffle’ in wnich unwarranted accusations of antinomian heresy were unwisely cast out there (with not a little pejorative language on the part of some). I also ready the responses of some of the ‘accused’ that were gracious, well written explanations of why the accusations were spurious. None of it made it when I pushed tue ‘Post’ button so maybe it shouldn’t have gotten out there in the first place. Needless to say, if I were to take sides, it wouldn’t be on the side of know-it-all armchair theologians. I’m one of those by definition, but hopefully I don’t come across as if I’m one of the ‘know it all’ types who seems to have heresy charges for against most of the organized church.
[...] response to a recent reference to the Michael post, I’d like to point out the painfully obvious: what a lousy attitude [...]
Excellent perspective. I always value efforts to dig beneath the surface to the deepest point of the taproot. Of course we could go all the way back to Augustine and some Gnostic roots, but this focused on what puts the “neo” in Neo-Calvinism. I may also post on all this, from yet another perspective.
Was much info packed into that post of Cynthia’s! Will be looking for your post as well, have bookmarked to keep checking.
Thanks for comments and for stopping by PostGhost…very interesting site…resurrecting deleted comments, must keep you mighty busy!!
Thanks TRT. I wish I was busier there, but it depends largely on other people saving and reporting what was deleted, and few even know the blog exists. It began as much as a rant as anything, but who knows, maybe it’ll take off one of these days.