The SGM Spiritual Abuse Holocaust: Wade Burleson is Not a Solution; He’s the Problem
“Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are?”
I really don’t have time to write this as I am preparing for a conference, but on the other hand I am both fuming and fed-up. “Trigger alert”? Oh this is way past that, hide the children.
Regarding the recent revision of the Catholicesque class action lawsuit against the New Calvinist organization Sovereign Grace Ministries, “holocaust” is not terminology that is out of line. If you have read the revision, I am sure you agree that the number of fatalities pale, but the shear degree of evil, even if half of the accusations are true, is comparable.
During WWII, a lone German pastor left the protection and comfort of his American mission and returned to the belly of the beast to cry out against the Holocaust. For his outcry, he was hung naked with piano wire. The New Calvinist beasts among us criticize Bonheoffer for being “unorthodox” and plotting against the German government while extolling Christopher Love as a godly martyr. Love was a Puritan who meddled in petty European power struggles between kings and was executed for it. Genocide was hardly the issue.
Like the vast majority of clergy during WWII, the American clergy rants ambiguously against the sin, but stands silent against the sinner. The apostle Paul rebuked Peter publically for eating sandwiches in hypocrisy, and commanded that elders who sin should be rebuked publically so that others would fear. Such rebukes in the midst of sin that the heathen will not even tolerate are nowhere to be found on the contemporary evangelical landscape. American pastors are the epitome of coldhearted indifference, hypocrisy, and lust for acceptance in the good ole boys club. They dream of invitations to the big conferences and the approval of those who best teach how to drink orthodox Kool-Aid intravenously. There are no words for the degree of contempt and disgust that I have for these pathetic cowards. Where is the outrage?
Though what I experienced pales in comparison to the SGM victims, I can speak to why victims wait so long to come forward. When things that don’t make any sense happen in an environment of trust, confusion waits for clarity before action. The confused rarely act, and the brainwashed rarely react at all. My responses are now in full gear—seven years later. Seven years. And in relative terms, I “only” lost all of my “friends,” my name, and half of my family.
But back to the hypocrites. Steve Camp, who once wrote a song about feeling the pain of others, even to the degree of tasting the salt in their tears, tweeted to me that the SGM scandal was a “local church” issue and shouldn’t be public. This also apes SGM’s defense; it’s not the world’s business. That was followed up by, “Do you not like him [CJ Mahaney]? I do.” Really? Is that where we are? While our ravaged Christian children languish away in mental hell the big dare from another pastor is to say that I don’t like CJ Mahaney? Is that how pathetic we are? And one of the most popular Christian musicians of our time boasts that he likes a friend of pedophiles? “But Paul, there is no verdict yet.” Yes there is. If Steve Camp likes CJ, he obviously believes CJ and has totally disregarded the claims of eleven people against an elder when only two are needed. Otherwise, he would wait to see if he still likes CJ. But he does, like all the other members of the New Calvinist coven.
And the likes of Pastor Wade Burleson only make the situation worse with his half- pregnant overtures. He becomes a cushion between the beasts and the ravaged. Burleson is a New Calvinist, that is bad enough, but he is passing on the opportunity to use his influence to call out these people by name—probably because he is a New Calvinist that sympathizes with those suing New Calvinists.
From time to time, groups of notable evangelicals come together and sign declarations. It’s always big news. I am still waiting for a declaration of zero tolerance for child-rapists in the evangelical church. It could be stopped. Yes indeed, no doubt. How? A declaration by notable pastors declaring that they will not tolerate it. A group of notable pastors walking down an isle on a Sunday morning and demanding that a man get out of the pulpit until certain situations are resolved. Why not? That’s what the apostle Paul did! And we are talking about child rape, not who we avoid at the diner. THIS IS A LEADERSHIP ISSUE.
Pastors are called on by God to strike fear in the hearts of sinning elders. Instead, they cover for them. One notable Southern Baptist pastor once said to a victim demanding justice, “What do you want me to do, shoot him?” Well, in my book, that would be a start, and certainly better than what is presently taking place. But all the victim really wanted is for this pastor to use his influence to protect others from her same fate. Is that too much to ask from these hirelings? Yes. Absolutely.
Wade Burleson has significant influence in evangelical circles, that’s why the Wartburg Watch slobbers all over him continually. He is a hero among spiritual abuse bloggers because he, get this, shows compassion for the spiritually abused. That’s where we are as well: any notable pastor that even shows compassion towards the spiritually abused is a hero! But we don’t need another polished evangelical celebrity in our day full of soothing words; these are times that call for the likes of Dietrich Bonheoffer.
Burleson needs to use his bogus influence to make a difference. He needs to start calling people out by name and calling other pastors to join him. He needs to stop playing both sides of the fence with compassion on one side and silence on the other. It’s not enough to call out the crime; the criminals need to be called out as well. We know he can name names in his own church when the offender is an average Joe, but will he call out the big-name pedophile collaborators? The victims of SGM are suing people and naming names, not just their crimes. As victims, they are courageously facing their abusers in court because pastors wouldn’t step up. Though Burleson is a “hero” for saying they can sue, they wouldn’t need to if he and others would fully exploit their God-given positions for the sake of victims.
If Burleson is going to play the role, he needs to leave it all on the court and stop separating the sin from the sinner. Victims don’t have that convenience if they get justice. And justice is a big part of healing. Stop playing Dietrich Bonheoffer and be Dietrich Bonheoffer who was a real advocate for victims. Victims were the real cause, not the preservation of social status.
paul
SGM Case Dismissed: Cross Made Bigger
As the blogosphere’s newly appointed “rabid anti-Calvinist,” I figured I would weigh in on the dismissal of the SGM lawsuit and live up to my new name by blaming this vile injustice on Calvinism.
It’s not a huge stretch; after all, the former primary defendants are Calvinists, and even in light of the horrific accusations, CJ Mahaney continues to be supported by the Calvinist community at large via speaking engagements, and silence. I understand that Kevin DeYoung, who has been silent on the issue, was quick to announce the dismissal on Twitter. The case also exemplifies the hilarious notion that these are men of the Word. The Bible states that accusations against an elder should only be heard by two or three witnesses; in this case, there were eleven, and on the record. Yet, NO Calvinist anywhere will take note of the accusations. Besides, the Bible states clearly that elders are to be beyond reproach, and CJ is hardly that.
The contemporary Calvinist resurgence movement known as New Calvinism has been getting massive press on its spiritual abuse for about ten years now. How bad is it? There are now two organizations formed for the express purpose of keeping Reformed churches out of court, and paid for by the sheep through donations! I will make this as simple as possible by once again commenting on a popular Neo-Calvinist illustration, published by them—not me:
Click on to Enlarge
This illustration is Calvinist epistemology. This is a visual description of Calvin’s first sentence in 1.1.1 of the Calvin Institutes: wisdom is deducted by knowledge of God and man; i.e., the top and bottom trajectories. That makes the cross bigger. That’s a good thing, right? In Luther’s epistemology, this illustration is known as the Theology of the Cross or the Cross Story as opposed to the glory story. Any possible contribution of good by us makes the cross smaller. That’s a bad thing, right?
Now think about this epistemology as set against these horrific abuses. Do I really have to do the math on this? How are people with this worldview going to look at the subject of justice? If we deserve justice, our trajectory goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about the victims? If they were totally innocent in the situation the trajectory again goes up and the cross gets smaller. What about any pure outrage concerning the actions? Why outrage? That’s a deeper knowledge of how evil we are which makes the cross bigger.
And to a Calvinist, that’s a good thing.
paul
The Potter’s House 5/19/2013
“The New Covenant was never made between God and the Gentiles—it was made with Israel. Nor is the covenant fully consummated. We presently enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant by Jewish proxy. What God said He was going to accomplish in the New Covenant is clearly not fulfilled. Many need to simply get over it: the saving of national Israel is yet future.”
Excerpt from this Sunday’s Potter’s House Message
“Beware of any man who applies justification verses to sanctification issues. Mark that man and flee from him.”
SGM’s House of Horrors and the New Calvinist Theocratic Subculture
The class action law suit brought against SGM has been revised. And with new allegations added, the narrative can now describe SGM as a house of horrors. I will leave the gory details to the Calvinism would be a good thing if not for the Neo-Calvinists crowd and their Reformed versions of the National Enquirer.
In a recent interview, John Piper discussed a few [!] faults that Calvin had; namely, his idea of integrating church and state. Piper then proceeded to propagate the outrageous idea that Reformed Baptists were responsible for reversing that concept. Funny, no matter how many times you read James Madison’s Memorial Remonstrance Against Ecclesiastical Establishments the Reformed Baptists don’t seem to be mentioned. Last year, Piper announced his post-retirement plans to spread “the light” of Calvinism—on location in Geneva as a way of presenting Calvin’s Geneva as a model for the renovation of humanity. If you believe Piper thinks the marriage of Church and state is a bad idea, I have an oceanfront property in Dayton, Ohio I would like to sell you.
CJ Mahaney and company may not think too much of what their pedophile friends have done, but to them, a bigger issue is at hand here: the preservation of their theocratic subculture. Mahaney et al don’t think that they should be subject to civil law. The way they state it: “The church should be free to shepherd their people as they see fit.” And the way they prefer to handle these situations should be evident by now and is directly linked to their Reformed ideology.
I have written on that extensively, and frankly, I am too lazy this morning to rehearse it all. It’s just exhausting: this behavior, though shocking, should not be surprising when their gospel is understood. Calvin and Luther considered the whole concept of Justice to be a joke and part of the “glory story” and not the “cross story.” These are people who function from a total different reality than normative metaphysics. If you believe that you are capable of interpreting your own reality you are living the glory story; if you trust them to interpret your reality for you according to the cross story, you are living in the gospel meta-narrative.
But back to my original point. New Calvinists have simply improvised and built a theocratic subculture. Again, I have written extensively on this and am weary of it. New Calvinist churches are ruled by elder law and have various ways of enforcing that law apart from the state. They would prefer the state, but the likes of James Madison, whom they despise, messed that plan up big-time on this corner of the globe.
Yawn, ugh, let me repeat a few improvisions: in-house security forces; control structure; covenants; church discipline; brainwashing; networking with likeminded government officials willing to operate off the record; etc.
Hence, the New Calvinists see this as an opportunity. If they win this case based on separation of church and state, the implications are staggering. Don’t miss this: that is why the rest of the New Calvinist community is watching this in silent, anxious anticipation. If you think they see this as a bad thing, if you think this puts New Calvinism on the ropes—you are dead wrong—they see this as a grand opportunity to set precedent and further strengthen their theocratic subculture.
paul
New Calvinism’s Anti-American Propaganda
In our most recent conference update Susan and I spoke of how the New Calvinist movement is attempting to recreate Christian reality. As part of this campaign, their overt rewriting of church history staggers one’s imagination in regard to audacity. It goes something like this:
The church was in a dark age. And the Reformers saved mankind from Catholicism. Then the children of the Reformers came to America and established its religious roots. But American capitalism and individualism has become a god and is destroying the piety that the precious Puritans brought here from Europe.
Hardly. First, the “church,” more correctly, “assembly of Christ” which adds Christ to the unbroken concept of “assembly” in both Testaments continues to be built by Christ and no darkness has ever prevailed against it—not even temporarily. The whole Dark Ages thing and its relationship to the “church” is a Western perspective. The world is bigger than Western culture.
Secondly, the philosophy of Socrates and Plato continues to dominate Western thought and culture to this very day. From Plato’s Academy, and his magnum opus, The Republic, Western thought moved forward in two directions: secular and religious. In the secular, it took the form of communism. In the religious, the identical ideology formed the foundations of Catholicism and Protestantism. The Reformers were merely “moral” philosopher kings.
And Plato didn’t come up with anything original. The cradle of humanity only had two religions: Friends of God and Spiritual Caste. And when you are God’s friend, He copies you on everything because you are morally responsible for the sum and substance of your own life, “the life that bears your name” (John Immel: TANC 2012). God doesn’t have an elite minority that rules over the unenlightened masses on his behalf. If the enlightened philosopher kings tell us to sacrifice our firstborn to the sun god, we protest because we didn’t get the memo.
And though we are to serve others, the sum and substance of our life is not defined by our contribution to “the group.” The Bible tells us to bear our own burdens as much as we possibly can. Individualism is not a sin. The demonizing of individualism is where New Calvinism and Communism play together in Plato’s sandbox. Don’t take the words of others for it, study history for yourselves; European religion has always been in bed with Fascism and Communism. Their like ideology spawns their common lust to control the masses.
And together, they despise the children of the Enlightenment that saved the American colonies from the tyranny of European religion. The Salem witch trials were a miniscule remnant of the bad seed. No country has ever flourished like America nor done good to the world in the same degree. Europe has never been a friend to God’s elect nation, but Israel has never had a better friend than America. America has never been a Christian nation per se. But there is immense power in even implementing God-given common sense….
….upholding individualism.
paul
Forget the Election Debate; Calvinism is a False Gospel
Perhaps the only book in existence that challenges the Protestant Reformation gospel in regard to doctrinal soundness. This book presents its case that the Reformation gospel is progressive justification, and that its major tenets such as total depravity extend to sanctification as well as justification. The total depravity of the saints? The book also explores the Reformation’s impact in regard to understanding the new birth.
Available on Amazon by these sellers: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1616588438
Some Good “Right Hand” Information on Calvinism’s Death Knell
“The Reformers take their place in human history as those who throw the gauntlet down at Christ’s feet when He warned to not take away or add to the word of God. Nothing affords the ability to do that like a meta-narrative. There has never been a more formidable onslaught against the truth of God than the Reformation’s meta-narrative.”
Calvinist’s don’t often know their right hand from their left hand because Reformed theology communicates from an entirely different metaphysical construct than the norm. Calvinists live in a world that is comfortable with contradictions because Calvinists reject literal grammaticism as a tool for interpreting reality. Calvinists have replaced literal grammaticism with meta-narrative, and the central theme of the meta-narrative (reality as narrative) is “Christocentricity.” Luther laid all of the foundations for this in his Heidelberg Disputation. This is a really, really big deal because Christians are people of The Book. Christianity lives or dies based upon what method interprets the Bible. If we can’t properly interpret truth, there is NO abundant life.
This is my primary theme at this year’s TANC Conference. Christ called on us to interpret the Bible literally within a grammatical construct. Allegory, etc., are communication tools that aid us in understanding objective truth that is to be applied literally. We don’t apply elements of allegory (i.e., pluck out your eye or cut off your hand), but we do apply the literal applications. Christ gave us brains so that we can think for ourselves: “it would be better” should indicate the point Christ was making; God is extremely offended by sin.
Christ propagated grammaticism in no uncertain terms when He annihilated all arguments against a resurrection by pointing out the verb tense of “I am.” The exchange is well worth reading in the full context:
Matthew 22:23 – The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, 24 saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother.’ 25 Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no offspring left his wife to his brother. 26 So too the second and third, down to the seventh. 27 After them all, the woman died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”
29 But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. 30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 31 And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” 33 And when the crowd heard it, they were astonished at his teaching.
The Reformed method of interpretation is not that of Christ. The Reformers take their place in human history as those who throw the gauntlet down at Christ’s feet when He warned to not take away or add to the word of God. Nothing affords the ability to do that like a meta-narrative. There has never been a more formable onslaught against the truth of God than that of the Reformation’s meta-narrative. Hence, the Reformers of our day state that grammar is merely a “guardrail for communication” but actually “hinders” the Bible’s true meaning (propagated by John MacArthur confidant Rick Holland). Throughout the book How People Change, Paul David Tripp concurs that the Bible states many truths laterally, but to take those truths literally circumvents the “saving work of Christ” in the believer. As an aside, note also that Christians still need to be saved.
So, no wonder that contradictions abound within the Reformed community. The ONLY objectivity is the gospel narrative. But narratives are open to a plethora of interpretation. Instead, the apostle Paul called for the “one mind in Christ.”
The most notable contradiction is disagreement on double imputation. To effectively argue against double imputation is to drive a dagger through the heart of the Reformation. Because the Reformed definition of righteousness is a perfect keeping of the law to maintain our just standing, the idea that Christ’s perfect obedience was imputed to our sanctification (and continues to be on the basis of us living out our sanctification by faith alone) is efficacious to the Reformed gospel.
The meta-narrative is that Christ died for our justification and lived a perfect life for our sanctification so that we can secure our just standing by faith alone in sanctification. In contrast, the grammatical approach sees sanctification as totally separate from justification, and double imputation being: our sins imputed to Christ and God the Father’s righteousness being imputed to us. A two-way double imputation versus a one-way double imputation. In the latter, Christians remain totally depraved, in the former they are new creatures because they now bear God’s seed within them. Hence, they co-labor with God in sanctification completely separate from justification. In the latter, progressive justification is made possible by progressive imputation; in the former, all imputation is a finished work before the foundation of the world.
We inherited the fullness of the Godhead before creation; we appropriate its power in the present through obedience, and will be redeemed by God (when He comes to collect what belongs to Him) in our glorification.
Nevertheless, some in the Reformed camp lodge par excellent argumentation against Reformed double imputation; the right hand doesn’t know from the left. With all of the above said, I would like to present a right-handed apology against Reformed double imputation. In the classic tradition of orthodoxy, a Reformed term for academic truth repackaged for parishioner mantraism, the following articles are predicated on the opinions of men. Regardless, the quotes that argue against Reformed double imputation couldn’t be better stated. Without further ado, here is the list of links:
http://johngreenview.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/imputed-active-obedience-iao-a-must-or-a-misdirection/
Page with all links:
The Potter’s House: Elect Israel and Justification
“The future of Israel is far from being a ‘non-essential secondary issue.’ If you don’t understand Israel’s election, you don’t understand your own election.”
”Works do not flow from justification—they flow from the new birth. They flow from the surviving spouse that is no longer under the marriage covenant of the law. Two different things entirely are pursued in each: justification is pursued by faith alone; in sanctification, fruit is pursued for the purpose of pleasing God.”
The first eleven chapters of Romans are about justification and its contrast to sanctification. We have learned that the express purpose of election is to remove all works from justification:
Romans 9:11- though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Election is not something that we should take and mold into a doctrine of fatalistic determinism. Many times, such doctrines translate into “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Or, “Who is God to find fault for who can resist His will?” I find agreement in statements that I have heard from other pastors: “God’s offer to the lost is a legitimate offer,” and “I don’t understand how God weaves His sovereignty together with our will.”
Election, as clearly stated in Romans 9:11, is for the purpose of completely removing any element of our works in justification. The purpose of election is not endless debate; the sole purpose is clearly stated. Nothing that we do in sanctification can affect what God chose to do before the world was created. We are free to pursue righteousness in sanctification freely and without fearful introspection. We have one motive; to please God. Paul said that we MAKE that our motive:
2 Corinthians 5:9 – So whether we are at home or away, we make it our aim to please him.
I also find it interesting that in context Paul is talking about this life and our afterlife, and in our afterlife, it will still be our goal to please the Lord. In eternity, we will still have goals. So, how important are GOALS in this life?
But all in all, I believe election creates a radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification. In fact, in one respect, those who teach that we can’t lose our salvation even if we deny the Lord are technically correct. But as we have learned in the book of Romans, there is a hitch called the new birth. Once born again, we are enslaved to righteousness:
Romans 6:18 – and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
We have also learned that to be set free from sin is synonymous with being set free from the law. Paul called this the law of sin (ROM 7:23). How can this be? How can we be free from the law and enslaved to its righteous requirements at the same time? That’s where the radical dichotomy between justification and sanctification must be true. For the believer there is no righteous requirement of the law in justification; we are justified by a righteousness that is apart from the law. In sanctification we are enslaved to the righteous requirement of the law. We don’t keep the law perfectly, but that doesn’t have any effect on our justification. If we don’t act like we are enslaved to the law by a willing spirit it brings our salvation into doubt. We may still be under law and not under grace. We cannot review the following too often in our day:
Lost = under law = will be judged by the law + provoked to sin by the law + and enslaved to sin.
Saved = under grace = will not be judged by the law + declared righteous apart from the law + provoked to righteousness by the law + enslaved to righteousness + able to please God by law-keeping.
We are now going to talk about the election of Israel as a nation and how that relates to this very subject of justification and sanctification, and the difference between the pursuits thereof. First of all, be sure of this: Israel was elected as a nation and all of God’s desires that Israel will be a holy nation before Him will be realized because God has determined it. Paul closes out his subject of justification, or the gospel if you will, with Israel as the context in Chapters 9-11. Chapter 12 begins instruction regarding life application in sanctification. Sanctification will not be successful without a proper understanding of justification. What’s wrong with the American church? Few Christians understand the difference between the two. They even understand less about how Israel fits into that understanding.
Just because national Israel was rebellious doesn’t mean that they weren’t elected, nor does it mean that election offers an opportunity to be saved, but then you have to do something to keep yourself in God’s family. Or, NOT do something to keep you in God’s family. If you have to not work in sanctification to keep your salvation, that’s working at not doing anything. In so-called “do’s and don’ts” the “don’ts” are works as much as the “do’s. “Living by a list” of such requires both. What we do in sanctification is a natural result of the new birth and totally separate from justification.
Listen, your attitude towards Israel reveals what you believe about justification. The future of Israel is far from being a “non-essential secondary issue.” If you don’t understand Israel’s election, you don’t understand your own election. Israel is the head and not the tail. They will always be prominent in God’s plan to reconcile himself to man. As Christ said to the woman at the well, “Salvation is of the Jews.” This is why Paul tells the Romans the following:
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed.
Paul also stated the irrevocable position of Israel in redemption and what “belongs” to them (present tense):
Romans 9:1 – I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit— 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. 5 To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.
Ephesians 2:11 – Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.
Anyone who is saved belongs to the commonwealth of Israel. Israel’s identity before God has not been diminished by the engrafting of the Gentiles:
Romans 11:28 – As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
So, national Israel is elected, and then there is a remnant within Israel that is elected, but the non-elect within Israel doesn’t mean Israel is not elected. This is because the general offspring of Abraham, (national Israel) are divided into children of the flesh and children of the promise:
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
In the first case, if the promise came through Ishmael rather than Isaac, that’s a problem because Abraham and Sarah tried to help God in producing the offspring. Remember, Hagar gave birth to a nation via Ishmael (GEN 16:10). The offspring would come through the promised miracle, Isaac. Then when Isaac’s wife Rebekah became pregnant, the Lord told her that there were “two nations” in her womb (GEN 25:23). Look, there is only salvation through one nation, Israel, and not multiple nations. Muhammad didn’t come out of Israel. Buddha didn’t come out of Israel. Sun Myung Moon didn’t come out of Israel. I find it curious that you never hear of a false Christ being rejected on that fact alone.
And in Israel, there is a single “seed” not “seeds.” This is the offspring from which Christ was born and was sustained by God’s work alone and many miracles. This offspring (singular) is also associated with “the promises” and “promise” as opposed to law. Hence, Paul states the following in Galatians:
Galatians 3:16 – Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. 17 This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 18 For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Those who don’t pursue righteousness by the promise alone are under the law which is synonymous with being enslaved to the flesh….
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
Paul also refers to the fact that those under the law, and in slavery to the flesh, will also be judged by the law:
Galatians 3:10 – For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
In Romans, Paul refers to being under the law as a marriage covenant in which the old us that was under the law has died, as is represented as a spouse under that covenant:
Romans 7:1- Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
You can also tie this back into Galatians 3:10 ff. in that the old spouse (the former us) died with Christ when He became a curse for us and bore our sins on the cross. We, and our sins, died with Christ:
Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Below is a chart that organizes the preceding thoughts visually:
Let me move on to the primary point I want to make with the following verses in Romans 9:
22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— 24 even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles? 25 As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” 26 “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: “Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved, 28 for the Lord will carry out his sentence upon the earth fully and without delay.” 29 And as Isaiah predicted, “If the Lord of hosts had not left us offspring, we would have been like Sodom and become like Gomorrah.”
Paul’s obvious point is that without God’s election, calling, and promise of the seed, neither Jew nor Gentile would be saved, but salvation is still of the Jews. There are many Israelites that will not be saved because they pursued righteousness by “a” law, and not by faith. Here is an important point: when Paul states that many pursue righteousness by the law, he is not speaking of a sincere effort to truly keep “the” law, it is always “a” law of their own picking and choosing; primarily, the traditions of men. In Galatians, I believe a doctrine was being taught that propagated the idea of salvation by circumcision along with a loose commitment to the rest of Scripture (GAL 4:2-6).
This brings us to the last point:
Romans 9:30 – What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 as it is written, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”
Justification is pursued by faith alone, but once it is obtained, we are free to pursue fruit in sanctification. In fact, we are commanded many times to do just that in sanctification. This is a primary difference between justification and sanctification. Salvation can only be pursued by faith, but once saved we are to pursue fruit:
Romans 14:19 – So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.
1 Corinthians 14:1- Pursue love, and earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that you may prophesy.
1 Timothy 6:11- But as for you, O man of God, flee these things. Pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.
2 Timothy 2:22 – So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart.
1 Peter 3:11- let him turn away from evil and do good; let him seek peace and pursue it.
Now, in our day we must consider that most churches teach us that we must pursue justification, and that fruits will flow from justification as we continually pursue a deeper and deeper knowledge of justification. See the below illustration:
CLICK ON TO ENLARGE
So, a pursuit of fruits directly makes “the fruit the root.” Others call it “fruit stapling” because it doesn’t flow from the roots of justification. But election makes justification a finished work. Works do not flow from justification—they flow from the new birth. They flow from the surviving spouse that is no longer under the marriage covenant of the law. Two different things entirely are pursued in each: justification is pursued by faith alone; in sanctification, fruit is pursued for the purpose of pleasing God.
The Holy Spirit is not an inept communicator; if He wanted us to primarily pursue justification in order to properly produce fruit, why wouldn’t He simply state that rather than stating in no uncertain terms that we are to pursue the fruits directly instead?
5 Reasons New Calvinism Will Die
New Calvinism will die again. For the fifth time in church history. There has been five resurgences and four deaths. That is why the primary agenda of TANC is to educate the church concerning every nuance. Lack of information is what enables this evil beast to come back into the church from time to time. The goal is to educate as many Christians as possible who will hopefully see this coming the next time. The following is an excerpt from the upcoming 2013 TANC Conference. In this first session, the five reasons New Calvinism will die are stated.
Excerpt:
Perpetual Death and Resurgence of the Authentic Reformation Gospel
As we have noted, as the Reformation moved forward in history, many did not realize that it spoke from its own reality. As Christians read their Bibles from the normative reality, the true gist of the Reformation gospel is lost over time. The Reformers were mostly responsible for the printing of English Bibles, but how they wanted the Bible to be read was mostly misunderstood despite their massive commentaries.
The natural tendency is to read literally and take the meaning of verbs, nouns, and prepositions at face value. This will draw one away from the Reformed gospel in general, but will retain the Reformation’s lack of emphasis on aggressive sanctification. Let me give you an example of this. In the book, “How People Change” by New Calvinist Paul David Tripp, he discusses the issue of Christians endeavoring to change their thinking to biblical thinking. This is a pretty passive consideration as far as human activity goes. In fact, changing the way we think is probably the most passive human activity we can think of. Yet, note what Tripp states on page 27 of said book:
….and the Bible does call us to change the way we think about things. But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior.
~ Paul David Tripp: How People Change Punch Press 2006, p. 27
This statement encapsulates the totality of Reformed metaphysics perfectly. First, we see the clear indication of what we will dissect in my second session; the Reformed gospel of progressive justification. Christians NEED the ongoing work of Christ AS SAVIOR in our lives. To not do Christianity in a certain way OMITS that saving work in sanctification. This statement by Tripp is a damning indictment of Calvinism.
Secondly, we see that although the Bible calls us to change the way we think, to read that in a normative reality is to misinterpret the “true” meaning, and unless those passages are understood via Reformed epistemology, the ongoing salvific work of Christ in our Christian lives will be circumvented. Elsewhere in the same book, Tripp states that biblical commands must be seen in their “Christ-centered gospel context” (Ibid p. 26). Throughout this same book, and like all Calvinists, Tripp speaks of “heart change,” but as we shall see in my second session, this is a term that DOES NOT mean that we change. The title of the book is a Calvinist lie. It is condoned by Gnostic arrogance that doesn’t think the common Christian is “ready” for the hard truth of the authentic Reformed gospel. John Piper made this specific notation in an interview:
I think Rome and Protestantism [the Protestantism that fell away from Reformed metaphysics] are not yet ready. I don’t think the Reformation is over (Online source: http://youtu.be/lQvtAd7WEOY).
The second reason that the authentic Reformed gospel dies a social death from time to time is because it is simply boring. It is driven by a narrow concept; everything is about the gospel. This was the major complaint that Dr. Jay E. Adams received while he was writing Biblical Sonship: An Evaluation of the Sonship Discipleship Course (Timeless Texts 1999). Concerned Christians told Adams that they were hearing the same things from the pulpit every week and the doctrine seemed “vague.” Susan and I have visited churches recently that were very exuberant about New Calvinism a couple of years ago, but follow-up visits reveal a marked decrease in enthusiasm. To be more specific, in protest regarding the possibility that we would ever return to one of the churches, our teenage son remarked, “That place isn’t very interesting.” Susan and I were also overwhelmed with the sense of deadness that was present.
A third reason is the fact that this doctrine does not produce spiritual growth which results in a plethora of negative issues that arise from spiritual immaturity.
A fourth reason is the spiritual tyranny that is ALWAYS part and parcel with this doctrine. Remember, it is basically a spiritual cast system that puts a high premium on control.
A fifth reason is the fact that God’s people eventually figure out that it is a false doctrine.
These are the five reasons why these resurgences die out. The hybrids that emerge are still predicated on weak sanctification which lays the ground work for the next resurgence. The following illustration shows how authentic Calvinism has oscillated between tyranny and weak sanctification throughout church history.
Calvinism’s Platonist Rejection of the Trinity
How do Calvinists reject the Trinity? Basically, they make God the Father and the Holy Spirit lesser forms of Jesus Christ. Their rejection of the Trinity is based on Plato’s theory of forms. This shouldn’t be any big surprise as one of the forefathers of the Reformation, St. Augustine, was a Plato groupie. My wife Susan will address the Plato/Augustine love affair in significant detail at this year’s TANC conference.
Plato’s basic idea of forms led to the Reformed Emphasis Hermeneutic, also known as the Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic. Plato’s trinity was the good, the true, and the beautiful, and all other forms, or solid matter if you will, are lesser forms of the true form. In one sense, Calvin believed that Jesus Christ brought the two together, but that is a philosophical angle we will not pursue here because other manifestations of this heresy are more plainly and easily seen. Calvinists merely make Jesus Christ the full expression of the good, true, and beautiful while representing the other members of the Trinity as lesser forms.
Hence, Jesus Christ, and His works become the stargate to all understanding of reality. The “gospel” is a term that encompasses the personhood of Christ and His works—this is the gateway to understanding ALL reality. The saving act (singular) of Jesus Christ is not something done in history as part of the Trinity’s plan to reconcile them to mankind, but is the key to understanding all reality. Therefore, many Calvinists refer to the “saving acts” (plural) of Christ and His personhood as keys to understanding. The Bible is therefore 100% about the gospel i.e., the personhood and works of Christ. More on this further along.
This is abundantly evident via the everything Jesus mentality of today’s churchianity. The books, the sermons, and the music are everything Jesus. This is why; it is a Protestant family tradition set on fire by the Neo-Calvinist movement. And it all begins in a galaxy far, far away known as Western philosophy. Calvin notes the following in his Institutes of the Christian Religion:
For this reason Augustine [who he quotes on average every 2.5 pages in the Institutes], treating of the object of faith (De civitate Dei lib. 11 c. 2), elegantly says, “The thing to be known is, whither we are to go, and by what way”; and immediately after infers, that “the surest way to avoid all errors is to know him who is both God and man, It is God we tend, and it is by man we go, and both of these are found only in Christ.
Therefore, supposedly, the “only” sure way to avoid error is to focus on Jesus Christ only, the idea that spiritual reality and physical reality are only seen in Christ notwithstanding. A clearer way to see how this all fleshes out is in the first tenet of New Covenant Theology which is a spinoff of Neo-Calvinism:
New Covenant Theology insists on the priority of Jesus Christ over all things, including history, revelation, and redemption. New Covenant Theology presumes a Christocentricity to the understanding and meaning of all reality.
Considered to be the foremost authority on Reformed hermeneutics in our day, Graeme Goldsworthy stated the following on page 48 of Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics (InterVarsity Press 2006):
If the story is true, Jesus Christ is the interpretative key to every fact in the universe and, of course, the Bible is one such fact. He is thus the hermeneutic principle that applies first to the Bible as the ground for understanding, and also to the whole of reality.
Calvinism concurs. ALL reality is Chrsitocentricity. The gospel is a stargate to the pure form of the good. Geoffrey Paxton, an Anglican theologian and authority on the Reformation, stated the following on page 41 of The Shaking of Adventism (Baker Book House 1978):
Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity!
This statement is both shocking and representative of Reformed trinitarian thinking. Paxton is absolutely right, Solus Christus means just that. Another way of understanding this is via the solar eclipse. This is the most popular example of how Christ must be the gateway to pure understanding. Christ is the Sun, the life-giving rays of light. To let anything obscure that light, no matter what it is—is to deprive ourselves of wisdom and life to that degree. When we let objects, even objects that are factual and true obscure Christ, we are “living in the shadows.” This is the theses of longtime John MacArthur confidant Rick Holland’s book, Uneclipsing The Son. The book is a Platonist/Gnostic treatise that is not even ambiguous. On page 11, Holland writes that the book of James presents Christ as the “rule and standard of all spiritual instruction.” On the same page, Holland asserts that Christ is the “one true God” and then cites five Scripture references that say no such thing.
John MacArthur wrote the Forward to Holland’s book being presently considered, and made these statements:
Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.
The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock.
No greater subject exists than Jesus Christ–no greater gift can be given than uplifting His glory for another soul to see it and be changed by it. This book will be a wonderful help to anyone who senses the need to orient one’s life and message properly with a Christ centered focus. It is full of fresh, practical, and memorable spiritual insight that will show you how to remove whatever obstacle is blocking your vision of the Son and allow His light to blind you with joy.
Christ, while praying to the Father, referred to the Bible as “your word” and “your word is truth” (John 17:17). We pray to God the Father, not Christ, and we baptize in the name of all three Trinity members. The Bible is not Chrsitocentric. The Bible has many major themes. The father of our faith looked for “a city built by God.” This contradicts the plain sense of Scripture, which brings me to my next point.
The Redemptive Historical Hermeneutic calls for a contemplation on Christ and His works only, or the gospel, and a logical conclusion drawn from the formation of verbs, nouns, adjectives, prepositions, etc., must be disregarded for a Chrsitocentric conclusion or a “truth” that “shows forth the gospel.” In the aforementioned book, on page 39, Holland has the audacity to make the following statement under the heading “When Bad Grammar Makes Good Theology”: “The rules of grammar are intended to be guardrails for communication. But sometimes they prevent it.” Insinuated is the idea that Christ’s greatness transcends mere grammatical rules, and therefore, one must break those rules to communicate how consumed our life must be with Christ.
A good example of this is a statement by Paul David Tripp on page 27 of How People Change (Punch Press 2006). Tripp acknowledges that the Bible in-fact does state that we should apply biblical commands to our life, but to take that literally, and not in its “Christ-centered gospel context” (p. 26) is to “omit” Christ in our life as “Savior.” Therefore, a literal approach to the Bible harkens to works salvation. The results of this can be seen in this approach to preparing Bible lessons:
At this time, resist the temptation to utilize subsequent passages to validate the meaning or to move out from the immediate context. Remembering that all exegesis must finally be a Christocentric exegesis.
Look for Christ even if He isn’t there directly. It is better to see Christ in a text even if He isn’t, than to miss Him where He is (Biblical Theological Study Center: A Christo-Presuppositional Approach to the Entire Scriptures; Max Strange. Online source: http://goo.gl/5sGjP).
Another authority on the Reformation, Robert Brinsmead, states this perspective concisely:
That which makes the Bible the Bible is the gospel. That which makes the Bible the Word of God is its witness to Christ. When the Spirit bears witness to our hearts of the truth of the Bible, this is an internal witness concerning the truth of the gospel. We need to be apprehended by the Spirit, who lives in the gospel, and then judge all things by that Spirit even the letter of Scripture (Brinsmead, Robert D. ”A Freedom from Biblicism” in The Christian Verdict, Essay 14, 1984. Fallbrook: Verdict Publications. Pgs. 9-14).
In other words, the meaning of Scripture according to the letter [i.e., logical interpretations from the grammatical construction] must be judged by “that Spirit” which “lives in the gospel.” All bets are off concerning any interpretation that seems to be the plain sense of the text.
Moreover, New Calvinists take this concept dangerously close to disparaging God the Father. In the book here cited by Holland, he suggests that Christ saved the world from God. In fact, the heading on page 23 reads, “Saved—From God.” So, apparently, hell is a God the Father sort of thing. On page 43 and following, Holland presents God as “our most pressing problem.” And, “man’s greatest problem is God, God Himself.” And of course, it’s Christ to the rescue, right?
Though few would reject the idea that Christ saved us from God’s wrath, it’s hardly the whole story and promotes the subtle New Calvinist goal of making Christ more significant than God the Father. Holland gives no Scripture references for this concept of Christ saving us from God because there isn’t any. God was just as involved in the salvation solution as Christ was, and Christ is also a God of wrath just as much as the Father is (Rev. 6:16,17 and 19:11-16). This whole concept is a subtle, but dangerous distortion. At the very least, making a strict dichotomy that associates wrath with God and salvation with Christ is ill advised and smacks of Marcionism.
Holland is hardly alone in this approach among New Calvinists. Paul Washer suggested to an audience of European college students that the goodness of God is man’s biggest problem (Online source: http://wp.me/pmd7S-1A3). At any rate, a standalone dichotomy of wrath versus love associated with Christ and the Father that is unqualified, is a concept that should make Christians very uncomfortable.
Calvinism promotes a Platonist-like distortion of the Trinity. It shouldn’t surprise us as the Plato/Reformed love affair is well documented. New Calvinists in our day even sport ministry subtitles with Platonist themes: “Between Two Worlds,” “Between Two Spheres,” and in regard to Plato believing that pure truth is static, “Truth Unchanging.”
Like all cultic false religions throughout history, they distort and therefore reject the Trinity.
paul
ADDENDUM
Calvin presented the priority of Christ over the other two Trinity members in the following way as explained by Mark Driscoll associate Justin Holcomb:
According to Calvin, the object of faith’s knowledge is Jesus Christ. He defines faith by proceeding to the center of a series of concentric circles: God’s existence, God’s power, God’s truthfulness, God’s will “toward us” as revealed in Scripture, and finally Christ. All these circles are implied in faith, but only the last is properly understood as the object of faith. Calvin goes so far as to say that those who say that God is the proper object of faith “rather mislead miserable souls by vain speculation, than direct them to the proper mark” (Institutes III.2.i). Christ as mediator is necessary if humans are to know God. Christ is not set over against God. Rather, Calvin asserts, Christ is the means—the only means—by which we can believe in God (Online source: http://theresurgence.com/2009/07/10/calvin-on-faith-christ-and-his-gospel).
ADDENDUM
One might consider the ruckus that was created over my suggestion that salvation involves all members of the Trinity and not Christ alone. I think this is telling. The following is a reprint of the controversy on Pastor Joel Taylor’s blog that resulted from some comments I had made on that subject:
5 pt salt .com
JUSTIFICATION IS NOT OF CHRIST ALONE
POSTED BY JOEL TAYLOR ON DECEMBER 15, 2011 IN GENERAL | 24 COMMENTS
I’m not even sure I like the title of this post. Not because it’s not true, but because it’s confusing.
Let me explain.
A few days ago I posted this piece promoting the book by Paul Dohse entitled The Truth About New Calvinism: It’s History, Doctrine, and Character. It’s worth reading. In fact, I think his book is an important one, and yes, I highly recommend you get it.
But, of course, not everyone feels that way.
Yesterday, after reading that post of mine, one 5ptsalt reader left this comment to me regarding Dohse and his book:
I’m pretty shocked you are promoting this book. Taking a peak inside reveals some pretty far out stuff. Just one example:
“First, justification is not by Christ ALONE. If God didn’t elect Christ, elect the elect, and draw them to Christ, along with sacrificing His only Son, what Christ did would have been for naught. So, justification is not by Christ alone.”
Buyer beware. This is dangerous stuff.
Well brethren, don’t be shocked that I promote this book. Be glad. And for you buyers, no need to beware.
Dohse is Right
Fact is, Paul Dohse is spot on, and even though he doesn’t need me to defend his statements, this reader’s comment gives us the opportunity to look at Scripture and, hopefully, instruct all of us. As Martha Stuart is apt to say, “That’s a good thing.”
See, it’s always important to look at statements in their proper context, a practice often overlooked and disregarded in the heat of defending what one is doctrinally comfortable with. But we need more importantly to examine all things in light of Scripture, it being – yes, I’m saying it again – the final authority in all things.
This comment by Dohse can be found from this post [link] of his which itself is a response to a series of questions by one of his readers. Here’s the question of the reader, followed by Dohse’s response:
Q: You have raised many issues in the last post that would take a book to answer. If I may, I would like to ask a few questions that might help us to clarify the issues on which we disagree. First, I want to state a couple of points on which I think we agree. Incidentally, I am convinced Piper and others would also agree.
…….
2. Justification is based on the work of Christ alone and our works do not contribute to it at all.
…..
Dohse responds to the second point:
2. First, justification is not by Christ ALONE. If God didn’t elect Christ, elect the elect, and draw them to Christ, along with sacrificing His only Son, what Christ did would have been for naught. So, justification is not by Christ alone.
Now, as I said earlier, Dohse is right. In fact, spot on. Here’s why: In a nutshell, it took all three persons of the Trinity to accomplish our justification. Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. If one dogmatically asserts that the Son alone is responsible for our salvation, including our justification, such a statement is clearly, from the Biblical testimony, an error.
Yes, the basis of our justification is the finished work of Christ alone, apart from our own works. That is true. Yet Dohse is merely pointing out the fact that unless the Father had predestined some to salvation, there would be none. The Father sent the Son to redeem us. The Holy Spirit works in us to make us holy. So Dohse is pointing out the involvement of the Trinity in our complete salvation. Although the basis for justification is Christ alone, there would be no justification without the involvement of all three persons of the Trinity in our redemption.
First, let’s give a simple definition of what justification is. Be sure and learn this, I implore you. When this is learned, hopefully, much confusion will be dismissed altogether.
Justification Defined
Justification is a declaration from the throne of God the Father concerning our legal status before His law. It is a single act, occurs one time, is never again repeated and is definitely not a process.
God the Father is the Author and Origin of Our Justification:
since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one. – Romans 3:30
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, – Romans 4:5
and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. – Romans 8:30
By the way, who predestination the elect unto salvation? Jesus Christ the Son? No! God the Father predestination us, according to Scripture. You see, it is God the Father who makes the declaration of justification, so to think justification is of Christ alone, well, that is simply not a biblical position.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him – Ephesians 1:3-4
Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; – Romans 8:33
When anyone objects to statements like “Justification is not by Christ alone”, I would suggest one needs to pull back, calm down, and search the Scriptures and strive towards of a biblical understanding of precisely what justification is, a declaration from God the Father.
Brethren, I hear far, far, far too much praying for the Holy Spirit to “come down” and manifest Himself. I strongly object to such, and I would encourage pastors, and elders who are allowing such to continue to rethink what they are encouraging.
Listen. The Holy Spirit, third person of the Trinity, points us to Christ, not to Himself, and does not anywhere in Scripture ask us to ask more of Him! (John 16:13, 14).
Listen again, please. Christ Jesus points us to the Father! He is the way to the Father, not just to Himself! John 14:6.
Look at Ephesians 2:18, 19 brethren, and for all you New Calvinists, contemplate this:
for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household
Now, why do so many focus only on the Son? For you to be redeemed, it took the entire Trinity, the triune Godhead, in perfect agreement together regarding a predestined, glorious plan of redemption of those given by the Father to the Son by the work of the Holy Spirit.
Sonship theology, indeed. Paul Dohse is right, because Paul Dohse is listening to God’s written Word, not the latest guru of truth.
Brethren, in love, I ask you not to ignore two members of the Trinity. Christianity is not wearing a Calvinistic t-shirt, boasting of your reformed views, and getting people to contemplate on the Gospel more.
That is utterly absurd. It is ignoring the whole counsel of God. This business of “Gospel sanctification” and Sonship theology is a dangerous – and exceedingly popular movement. And it is a movement that endangers souls.
So get that book, read it, be alert, and learn and be aware of anything and anyone who, in your heart, trumps the Word of God. May we all strive to better acknowledge the final authority of God’s Word, and rest our beliefs on its veracity alone.
24 COMMENTS
JOSHUA
DECEMBER 15, 2011
Did you believe this before Dohse made his statements or did he lead you to this understanding?
REPLY
ELLEN
DECEMBER 15, 2011
What then are we to think about the following scripture, relating to the reasoning in this post? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word
was God. John 1:1
REPLY
JOEL TAYLOR, PASTOR-TEACHER POST AUTHOR
DECEMBER 15, 2011
You should think that Jesus was in the beginning, eternal, and was with God, with God the Father, God the Holy Spirit, and was/is God Himself, and created all things, and all things are upheld by Him, for Him and through Him.
REPLY
JOE
DECEMBER 15, 2011
I like John 3:16
REPLY
JOHNDUNNINGUK
DECEMBER 15, 2011
I believe that if we are to truly accept the doctrines of grace as being true, we cannot do so sincerely, and yet fail to understand the crucial role that all three Persons of the Godhead play in our salvation.
In covenant theology, there is a sense whereby that which we know as the covenant of grace, flows directly out of an agreement within the Godhead made before creation, known as the counsel of peace, and sometimes as the covenant of redemption.
It was in this coming together of the Godhead to form a plan of creation, redemption and salvation, that each Person of the Godhead took upon their role. (I realise this is a pretty poor description on my part, so please excuse me). Each Person of the Godhead being indispensible to the other, and the faithful work of each Person, utterly vital for the plan of salvation to succeed.
Although I can sort of understand peoples reaction to this post generally, I have to agree that I think it more emotional than intellectual. It is undoubtedly true to say that there is absolutely no sacrifice for sin that is acceptable to God, other than Christ. However it would also be true that without the sovereign election of the Father, giving a people to His Son to redeem through His own blood, His sacrifice would be for nought. And were it not for the Holy Spirit, sealing those who have been chosen and redeemed, acting as the deposit that guaranteed their inheritance in Christ, then none would be brought to glory anyway.
REPLY
MAY
DECEMBER 15, 2011
However it would also be true that without the sovereign election of the Father, giving a people to His Son to redeem through His own blood, His sacrifice would be for nought.
Why would His sacrifice be for nought? The Father knows that some will and some will not believe.
REPLY
JOHNDUNNINGUK
DECEMBER 16, 2011
Why would His sacrifice be for nought? The Father knows that some will and some will not believe.
If you read through John 6:37-44 you will see what I meant more clearly. Christ did not come to the earth to do His own will, but the will of the One who sent Him. Namely the Father.
It is the Father who elects those who are to be saved and gives them to His Son to raise up on the Last Day, and we are told that ALL those who are given by the Father shall come to the Son.
The willingness of Christ to lay down His life to save us as the redeeming price, can only redeem those the Father has given Him to redeem. Therefore without being given a people by His Father, His sacrifice would purchase nothing.
REPLY
TIM SCOTT
DECEMBER 15, 2011
I’m a little confused. I want to ask a clarifying question, just to make sure I have read your article correctly. Aren’t you denying a central tenet of the Reformation? I mean, yes, salvation involves all persons of the Godhead but how was that salvation accomplished? Through Christ right?
REPLY
JOEL TAYLOR, PASTOR-TEACHER POST AUTHOR
DECEMBER 15, 2011
What ‘central tenet’ of the reformation would I be denying? The Father is the one who justifies, according to Scripture.
REPLY
Pingback: God Making His Appeal Through Us. « Kevin Nunez
TIM SCOTT
DECEMBER 15, 2011
Solus Christus
REPLY
JOEL TAYLOR, PASTOR-TEACHER POST AUTHOR
DECEMBER 15, 2011
Tim, the Father elected those who would be saved, and gave them to the Son to be redeemed, which He did at the cross. That is the testimony of Holy Scripture. We must be careful not to make being ‘reformed’ more important than being biblical. Solus Christus is not about the doctrine of justification brother.
REPLY
TIM SCOTT
DECEMBER 15, 2011
Thanks. That is why I was making sure I understood what you were saying. Appreciate your answer bro.
JOHNDUNNINGUK
DECEMBER 16, 2011
It seems to me that this is the result of a sloppy question/statement followed by a precise answer. I’m not saying that to lay blame on anyone, but merely to say that where matters of doctrine are concerned, precision in our language is essential. All the JW’s do is add one little letter “a” to John 1:1 and it turns the whole Gospel on its head!
The statement made was: “2. Justification is based on the work of Christ alone and our works do not contribute to it at all.” To which the response made was bang on. The intent of the statement maybe obvious enough to some, but it is far from being accurate, and may well lead to wrong doctrine developing if left unchallenged.
REPLY
VINCEPLANETTA@GMAIL.COM
DECEMBER 16, 2011
It doesn’t seem to me the statement should be shocking at all (Jam 2:24). I think reformers have placed too much emphasis on “alone” and is so often misleading. Not that it is incorrect but can potentially detract from man’s response and action.
REPLY
GRACEWRITERRANDY
DECEMBER 16, 2011
The real issue is not whether all three persons of the Trinity are involved in the work of salvation, That should go without saying for anyone who has read the Scriptures. The question that I originally asked to Paul Douche concerned the basis of the sinner’s justification before God. Is it the work of Christ alone or is it the work of Christ’s work or Christ’s work plus our obedience. Whether you like it or not, the Father’s work in electing believers was not the basis of our justification; the Spirit’s work in regeneration was not the basis of our justification. Were those works necessary in order to justify us? Of course they were! Were they the basis of our justification? No way! The basis of our justification was the obedience of Christ alone.
REPLY
JOEL TAYLOR, PASTOR-TEACHER POST AUTHOR
DECEMBER 19, 2011
The basis of our justification is the finished work of Christ, absolutely. However, this post never mentions you, nor is it about you. it concerns a comment left on 5ptsalt in regards to PD.
REPLY
GRACEWRITERRANDY
DECEMBER 16, 2011
“Solus Christus is not about the doctrine of justification brother.”
If it is not about justification. what is it about?
REPLY
JOEL TAYLOR, PASTOR-TEACHER POST AUTHOR
DECEMBER 17, 2011
Salvation.
Acts 4:12 – and there is salvation in no other One, for neither is there any other name under Heaven having been given among men by which we must be saved.
1Ti 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
1Ti 2:6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.
REPLY
GRACEWRITERRANDY
DECEMBER 17, 2011
johndunninguk,
You stated that there is something inaccurate about the statement I made. I would be interested in knowing what part of that statement you find sloppy. Do you think it is inaccurate to say that God’s declaration is based on [not by] Christ’s finished work alone or do you think it is inaccurate to state that our works do not contribute to justification at all? If it is not based on Christ’s finished work, on what basis do you think an absolutely holy God could declare sinners righteous and remain righteous himself?
REPLY
JOHNDUNNINGUK
DECEMBER 17, 2011
Hello Andy,
Firstly I do fully believe that our justification is based upon the finished work of Christ on our behalf. I also believe that the very reason that God is willing to justify sinners, can only be because by faith we have accepted and put our trust in the only acceptable sacrifice that can be made for our sins, and that is the One who God sent as that sacrifice. Our own works have nothing to do with it, apart from maybe fighting against the process.
The thing I disagree with is your initial statement “Justification is based on the work of Christ alone”, which is not fully true. Our justification can only come through repentance and faith, both of which I would consider the works of Father and Holy Spirit, as opposed to Christ Himself.
I only object because unless we are elected by the Father, given the gift of faith and drawn by Him, and regenerated and convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit; then the completed works of Christ alone do not justify us at all. To believe otherwise leaves pitfalls such as universalism wide open for us to fall into.
God bless you, and please excuse me if I have come across harsh in any way. John.
REPLY
GRACEWRITERRANDY
DECEMBER 17, 2011
John,
Thanks for your reply. I don’t think we disagree re: the statement I made. It seems our only areas of disagreement have to do with the difference between the basis of justification and how justification is received. Justification is clearly THROUGH faith which includes repentance, but we are never told that justification is BASED ON, that is on account of or because of the sinner’s faith.
It is important that we distinguish between redemption planned, redemption accomplished and redemption applied. Although the Father and the Spirit were both involved in the offering up of Christ’s obedience unto death, it was his obedience that formed the basis upon which the Father declares us righteous in his sight. It is his righteousness that is put to our account and forms the basis for the Father’s declaration that we are righteous before him. The Father’s primary work in the process of redemption occurred in the area of redemption purposed or planned. He is also involved in the application phase, i.e., effectual calling. The Spirit’s primary work occurs in the application phase. As essential as these works of the Father and the Spirit are, none of those activities on their part form the judicial basis upon which God justifies sinners.
Randy
GRACEWRITERRANDY
DECEMBER 17, 2011
John,
One additional thought. Part of Christ’s redemptive work is reconciliation that not only effects the putting away of the Father’s holy wrath toward the elect, but also guarantees the putting away of our unholy hostility toward God. It is this redemptive accomplishment that the Spirit applies to the elect in regeneration. If we are believers, we have now received the reconciliation (Rom. 5:11) that Jesus accomplished objectively on the cross. That is, Jesus’ accomplishment has now been applied.
Randy
American Clergy Brilliance: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration”
“Look, think about this: even an adolescent Sunday school student can see it; if the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law (Romans 3:21), why would Christ need to keep it for our justification? For crying out loud, what does ‘apart’ mean?”
My theses for this year’s TANC conference highlights the fact that the Reformers taught from a totally different reality than a normative reality that draws logical conclusions from the arrangement of verbs, nouns, prepositions, adjectives, conjunctions, etc. taken at face value. The Reformers created their own metaphysical premise for interpreting reality. The authentic Reformed gospel is predicated on a contra reality.
This is one of four reasons that the authentic Reformed gospel experiences a social death periodically throughout church history, and then periodic resurgence movements like the one we are presently in via New Calvinism. There have been five of these resurgence movements sense Calvin’s theocracy in Geneva. They will be documented in volume two of The Truth About New Calvinism. As Christians read their Bibles, they are naturally drawn away from the authentic Reformed gospel because the human tendency is to interpret reality from the normative perspective. They become uncomfortable with the contradictions.
However, as each resurgence dies a social death, Protestant traditions of men continue to be a significant part of what emerges from the ashes. A Reformed hybrid emerges that apes the anemic sanctification spawned by Reformed thought. This lays the ground work for the resurgences that follow. Protestantism, historically, oscillates between the weak sanctification of the hybrid and the despotic resurgence movements that temporarily replace the hybrid. Basically, the vicious cycle must be stopped if revival is going to be possible. God sanctifies with truth, not the traditions of men.
Part and parcel is a dumbed-down Christianity saturated with the traditions of Reformed men—primarily dead ones. Men of old that are deemed geniuses are often mindless Kool-Aid drinking followers of John Calvin and his ugly stepchildren, the murdering despotic Puritans. Part of the Protestant tradition that carries on is the big “O,” ORTHODOXY. A synonym for “truth” in American churchianity, it is really the repackaging of truth interpreted by the Protestant elite for consumption by the unenlightened masses. The American church follows the tradition of Protestantism when the arrogant, elitist who’s who of evangelicalism come together and publish declarations; i.e., the confessions and creeds of traditional Reformed thought.
A recent example of this is the third edition of The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration (1994, 1997, 1999) signed and or endorsed by, for example, the following:
John Ankerberg, Kay Arthur, Tony Evans, Jerry Falwell, Bill Hybels, David Jeremiah, D. James Kennedy, Max Lucado, Woodrow Kroll, Tim & Beverly LaHaye, Erwin Lutzer, Bill McCartney, Luis Palau, Pat Robertson, Ronald Sider, Charles Stanley, John Stott, Joseph Stowell, Chuck Swindoll, Bruce Wilkinson, Ravi Zacharias, Jack Hayford, Steven Strang, John MacArthur Jr., RC Sproul, Charles Colson, Bill Bright, and JI Packer.
Only problem is, the document denies the new birth and describes Christians as being under the law as opposed to being under grace. In other words, the authentic gospel of the Reformation. First, the document speaks from the perspective of the authentic Reformed gospel that only recognizes the possibility of a linear gospel; ie., the “golden chain of salvation.” Because sanctification is the links of a chain that stretches from justification to glorification, the links must stay intact by the same gospel that saved us. Hence, grace cannot be inside of the believer because that makes him/her a participant in the completion of justification. Justification is only a finished work if we live among the sanctification links in the same way we were saved—by faith alone.
The Reformers only recognized this reality, and judged all other gospels from the same reality. Grace is either infused within the believer, making him/her a participant in finishing justification, or grace remains completely outside of the believer. The alternative that sanctification is completely separate, a parallel gospel, is not considered to be a possible reality. According, note the following statement in said GEC document:
We deny that we are justified by the righteousness of Christ infused into us or by any righteousness that is thought to inhere within us.
The Reformers believed that ALL grace and righteousness must remain OUTSIDE of the believer or it by default made him/her a participant in the completion of justification. They got around the mass of prepositions throughout Scripture that clearly state that grace is within us by utilizing the emphasis hermeneutic (the redemptive historical hermeneutic). This hermeneutic is a Gnostic concept derived from Plato’s theory of forms. I will delve into this in detail during my second session at this year’s TANC conference. Granted, many of the signers probably didn’t, and still don’t understand what the Reformers believed, and I believe other signers such as RC Sproul deliberately play on that confusion.
Secondly, the doctrine propagates the Reformed mainstay of Christ’s perfect obedience to the law being imputed to our sanctification so that “sanctification is not the ‘ground’ of our justification.” See the chain thing going on there? Our enablement in sanctification necessarily makes sanctification the GROUND of our justification because sanctification finishes justification. It’s a “chain.” Here is what the document states:
God’s justification of those who trust in him, according to the Gospel, is a decisive transition, here and now, from a state of condemnation and wrath because of their sins to one of acceptance and favor by virtue of Jesus’ flawless obedience culminating in his voluntary sin-bearing death.
And….
We affirm that Christ’s saving work included both his life and his death on our behalf (Gal. 3:13). We declare that faith in the perfect obedience of Christ by which he fulfilled all the demands of the Law of God on our behalf is essential to the Gospel. We deny that our salvation was achieved merely or exclusively by the death of Christ without reference to his life of perfect righteousness.
Look, think about this: even an adolescent Sunday school student can see it; if the righteousness of God is revealed apart from the law (Romans 3:21), why would Christ need to keep it for our justification? For crying out loud, what does ‘apart’ mean? Worse yet is the idea that this perfect obedience is imputed to our sanctification if we live our Christian lives by faith alone because sanctification is a progressive process that finishes justification. James refuted this idea in no certain terms, which is why the Reformers questioned its rightful place in the New Testament canon.
Moreover, this idea keeps Christians “under the law,” which is the biblical designation for the unregenerate. I don’t know much about the theologian William R. Newell, but with that disclaimer, I will say that I agree with his opinion in regard to this issue:
The fatal result of this terrible error is to leave The Law as claimant over those in Christ: for, “Law has dominion over a man as long as he liveth” (7.1). Unless you are able to believe in your very heart that you died with Christ, that your old man was crucified with Him, and that you were buried, and that your history before God in Adam the first came to an utter end at Calvary, you will never get free from the claims of Law upon your conscience (William R. Newell: Verse by Verse Commentary on Romans).
Hence, the law remains a claimant over the believer at any point where he/she stops living their life by faith alone in the same gospel that saved them rather than belief in the new birth followed by the death of the old us that died with Christ and is no longer under the law. We must now fear that our obedience in sanctification is making the law the “ground” of our justification. Likewise, Calvin stated the following:
Another principal part of our reconciliation with God was that man, who had lost himself by his disobedience, should by way of remedy oppose to it obedience, satisfy the justice of God, and pay the penalty of sin.
Editor’s note: For our redemption, Christ kept the Law for us and died upon the Cross. By this, Christ obtained forgiveness of sins for us (Calvin on the Mediator: Chapel Library press, 2009).
This is also known as “vicarious law-keeping.” A definition of vicarious is:
Adjective
Experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person: “vicarious pleasure.” Acting or done for another: “a vicarious atonement”.
Christians need to stop following men in general, and Reformed men in particular. God only sanctifies with truth, and Reformed doctrine does not save or sanctify accordingly. It calls for a salvation by law-keeping and who keeps it is not the issue. The law as a standard for justification is the issue. It also denies the different relationship of the law to believers as opposed to unbelievers: the law provokes the former to righteousness, and provokes the latter to sin. It skews the very biblical definition of the regenerate.
paul
The Problem With Calvinism
There is NO law in justification. Justification is finished and is completely apart from the law. It is impossible for the Christian to sin against justification because there is no law to judge him, and the old man born under the law died with Christ and is free from the law. Calvin believed that our justification is maintained by a perfect keeping of the law. Hence, the need for the continued salvific works of Christ in sanctification. But no law needs to be kept in order to maintain our justification and our true righteous standing. Law-keeping by anyone, including Christ, is NOT part of the atonement. We are truly righteous now because the seed of God is within us and the law provokes us to righteousness instead of provoking us to sin. The fact that we don’t keep the law perfectly is neither here nor there in regard to justification and only effects our intimacy with the Father which is a family matter and not a justification matter. The weakness of our flesh that causes us to sin and wages war against us is the spouse who died, so we are no longer judged by that covenant, which is the law. See Romans 7. Calvin preached a justification that HAS TO BE MAINTAINED by a perfect keeping of the law by Christ and imputed to our sanctification by faith alone. It’s a false gospel.
Calvin’s Definition of the Regenerate is the Bible’s Definition of the Unregenerate
There is a slight problem with Calvinism. Calvin’s definition of a Christian is the Bible’s definition of a lost person. Calvin, the supposed genius that he was, therefore declared Christians everywhere to be lost. Brilliant.
It all starts with Calvin’s view of the Christian’s relationship to the law:
1. It is the standard for the Christian’s justification.
2. The law must be kept perfectly in order to be considered righteous presently.
3. Christians cannot please God through obedience to the law because we still sin.
Let’s establish these three points from the Calvin Institutes (3.14.9-11):
We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation.
Even were it possible for us to perform works absolutely pure, yet one sin is sufficient to efface and extinguish all remembrance of former righteousness, as the prophet says (Ezek. 18:24). With this James agrees, “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all,” (James 2:10). And since this mortal life is never entirely free from the taint of sin, whatever righteousness we could acquire would ever and anon be corrupted, overwhelmed, and destroyed, by subsequent sins, so that it could not stand the scrutiny of God, or be imputed to us for righteousness. In short, whenever we treat of the righteousness of works, we must look not to the legal work but to the command. Therefore, when righteousness is sought by the Law, it is in vain to produce one or two single works; we must show an uninterrupted obedience.
God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law. This were only to mock and delude us by the entertainment of false hopes. For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins. Wherefore the statement which we set out is always true, if we are estimated by our own worthiness, in everything that we think or devise, with all our studies and endeavors we deserve death and destruction.
We must strongly insist on these two things: That no believer ever performed one work which, if tested by the strict judgment of God, could escape condemnation; and, moreover, that were this granted to be possible (though it is not), yet the act being vitiated and polluted by the sins of which it is certain that the author of it is guilty, it is deprived of its merit.
Clearly, Calvin believed Christians are still under the law and its requirement of perfection. Once our past sins are forgiven, the law requires a perfect keeping thereafter:
God does not (as many foolishly imagine) impute that forgiveness of sins once for all, as righteousness; so that having obtained the pardon of our past life we may afterwards seek righteousness in the Law.
Notice that Calvin dismisses a future forgiveness of sins once we are forgiven of “our past life.” Apparently, at the point of salvation, past sins are forgiven but from there forward a perfect keeping of the law is required in order to be considered righteous. Since this is not possible, a perpetual forgiveness of sins is required to maintain our just standing:
For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins.
Calvin taught a need for the perpetual remission of sin in order to remain just, and a perpetual imputation of Christ’s righteousness as well:
Therefore we must have this blessedness not once only, but must hold it fast during our whole lives. Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; in short, perfect obedience, by which all our iniquities are covered (Ibid.)
Calvin believed that faith alone in sanctification, the same way we were saved, keeps this process of perpetual justification going. He posed the opposition as those who believed that the new birth enabled the Christian to participate in completing justification, and since the completion would not be a perfect keeping of the law, that it was a false approach:
They admit that the sinner, freely delivered from condemnation, obtains justification, and that by forgiveness of sins; but under the term justification they comprehend he renovation by which the Spirit forms us anew to the obedience of the Law; and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them (Ibid).
Until this day, the Reformed misrepresent the new birth as a work inside the believer that enables them to participate in the completion of justification because they only recognize a “golden chain of salvation” in which sanctification finishes justification. That is why authentic Calvinism insists on “Christ 100% for us [IN sanctification and justification both]” and any and all works of grace being completely outside of the believer. What about “faith”? Faith must focus on the gospel OUTSIDE of us or it is irrelevant. Any recognition that faith is inside of us leads to subjectivism. So, true faith is that which focuses on another object, or it’s not faith. Whether or not it is inside of us is irrelevant. In fact, God Himself should not be emphasized as much as Christ and His gospel lest we “rather mislead miserable souls by vain speculation, than direct them to the proper mark” (Institutes III.2.i).
The primary contradiction is that Christians are no longer under the law for justification. There is NO law standard that must be maintained for our just standing. That is how unbelievers are biblically framed. Again, Calvin frames believers in the same way that the Bible frames unbelievers:
Romans 3:19 – Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. 20 For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.
Romans 3:21 – But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
Romans 3:28 – For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.
Romans 4:15 – For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Romans 5:13 – for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Romans 7:6 – But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
Romans 7:8 – But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.
We see that a perfect keeping of the law is completely unnecessary for the Christian. Who keeps it or doesn’t keep it for our justification is completely irrelevant for the standard of the law does not exist in justification: “But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law.”
Furthermore, if we are still under the jurisdiction of the law for our justification, we are technically, according to the Bible, unregenerate and still enslaved to sin:
Romans 6:14 – For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Because we died with Christ, the old us that was under the law is like a spouse that died; we are no longer under that marriage law and the new us is free to marry another:
Romans 7:1 – Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.
We are no longer under the law for justification, and not of the nature that goes along with that: enslavement to sin. Nor are we any longer provoked to sin by the law, which is another characteristic of being under it:
Romans 7:5 – 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.
Those under the law cannot obey the law, but in direct contradiction to Calvin, those under grace can obey and please God with obedience accordingly:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The law now informs our sanctification (ROM 3:21, GAL 4:21) and provokes us to obedience from our redeemed hearts:
Romans 6:1 – What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
Slaves to Righteousness
15 What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! 16 Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves,[c] you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? 17 But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, 18 and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.
Calvin’s soteriology is utterly anti-gospel and the antitheses of truth. It must be rejected with extreme prejudice. It makes a mockery of biblical common sense—describing the regenerate as unregenerate.
paul
Confused in Denmark: Seeker of Truth Wants Answers to Seven Questions About Salvation
“I love you, but your thinking is fraught with Reformed morbid introspection that they want to use to control you. Stop reading John Piper.”
Busy and haunted. I received an email from a person in Denmark that is confused about all of the different positions on the gospel floating about today. Our commentary from the first eight chapters of Romans (compiled manuscripts from the Potter’s House) answer the questions in detail. Susan and I have received positive feedback regarding the book. At least one family is using it for their family devotions. So concerning the Denmark person, I offered to send the book and the offer was accepted. That was easy.
And haunting. I once talked to a Christian who was critical of an elder that she sought out for counsel. With an expression on her face somewhere between disgusted and hurt, she stated, “I came to him for help. Do you know what he did? He gave me a book!” Let there be no doubt about it: Christian books have gone way beyond teaching in our day, they are orthodoxy. And by the way, Neo-Calvinism all but completely owns Christian publishing. “Orthodoxy” is a Reformed term. It is the faith repackaged for the unenlightened masses by the preordained Reformed philosopher kings. For the most part, American Sunday Schools teach from Reformed writings and not the Bible. This is a complaint that this ministry hears constantly. These guys have effectively rewritten systematic theology and church history. They have created another standard of Christian reality altogether and speak from that reality as if there is no other reality.
And this is where the confusion comes in. But confusion is good. Confusion is very good. Concern that you are confused is even better. If you are letting other people think for you—you are not confused. Everything makes perfect sense to you even though it is completely illogical. Jesus warned us about letting other people think for us. He referred to it as the blind leading the blind. That rarely turns out well.
So, we may conclude that confused Christians who know they are confused, and are concerned about it, are the top of the crop among Christians in our day. They are the blue chip because they are thinking Christians. We must not merely hand them a book. Besides, others may have the same questions.
1. Who is a true Christian?!
Answer: Those who place all of their hope in God and believe in His way of being reconciled to Him. Remembering that God has promised to reward those who seek Him is also very helpful. Don’t be too concerned with your confusion at this time: He who has promised is faithful. In regard to your residual question, “Should I just then read the Bible and forget about every other theory and just rely on my Bible reading?” The short answer is, ABSOLUTLEY. I am not discarding the need for teachers, but they must bow to the authority of Scripture. The Bible must be your absolute authority for life and godliness.
2. What does a true Christian look like?
Answer: A true Christian doesn’t “look like” anything. That’s the wrong question coming from Reformed metaphysics where verbs are works salvation. The Hebrew writer framed the question this way: what do Christians DO? See Hebrews 11. Aggressive DOING in our Christian life reveals that we really believe that our salvation is a finished work that we cannot contribute to. Fear of doing in our Christian life reveals an attitude that our salvation must be maintained in some way by living a noun life instead of a verb life. Hence, “what does that look like” rather than “how do I do that?” “How do I please God” becomes, “What does that look like” because it really isn’t me doing it. If I am doing it, I am finishing my salvation in some way. Salvation is finished, and it can only be appropriated through faith alone. But the power imputed to us for Christian living must be appropriated through BOTH faith and obedience. In our Christian life, faith and obedience work together and enhance each other (James 2:22). Hence, assurance of salvation grows as our obedience and faith feed each other.
3. Is there such a thing as a wealthy (monetary terms) Christian?
Answer: Yes. Kingdom living is many faceted and full-orbed. God uses a variety of socio-economic types of people in His kingdom.
4. Does being a Christian mean having no money, no career ambitions.
Answer: Only if you are a follower of Martin Luther. We are free from the law and have incredible liberty to pursue the things we enjoy. However, though free from the law’s jurisdiction, we are “enslaved to righteousness.” The balance of liberty and what is pleasing to God is a complex issue, but that is why God gave us a miraculously designed and capable brain. Be patient and wait on the Lord as you prayerfully search the Scriptures for these answers. Even Daniel lived this way. He searched the Scriptures for answers. And many times, the answers we seek will determine the book where we look for the answers (Daniel 9:1,2).
5. How do I please God with my life? For example, how much Bible reading am I supposed to do? Should I wait for the Spirit to lead me? Can I continue reading romance novels or should I stop because Christians say it is wrong, yet I still want to read one?
Answer: No, as Christians, we NEVER wait to do anything that is within our power and abilities to do. To do otherwise is to rob blessings from our Christian life (James 1:25). Granted, we will continually rob ourselves of blessings because we are hindered by our mortality: “The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.” As Christians, we have new desires. But a remnant of the old sinful desires remain. HOWEVER, unlike when we were unsaved, their power to control us is broken because the old us died with Christ. HOWEVER, the old desires wage war against us through feelings, and the argument that we have to obey those desires can be pretty strong. But because of what we know from the Scriptures, those feelings are lying. The strength of the sinful desires’ argument is strengthened through disobedience.
Christians should listen to their conscience. The apostle Paul said to keep a clear conscience before God. However, as our conscience becomes more and more biblically trained, our consciences will give more freedom. Right now, if reading romance novels makes you feel guilty, I would encourage you to stop. Don’t violate your conscience. Don’t allow a desire to lead you into a watered down blessing that you cannot fully enjoy anyway. I know that there is a, well, for lack of a better way of stating it, “need” for Christian romance novels. Some of the content in the novels you are reading could be the issue. Christians are to “dwell” on what is honorable. That doesn’t exclude creative/interesting thoughts provoked by reading.
6. How do I know I am pleasing God from my heart and not as a result of my intellect?
Answer: Learn and do. ALL truthful obedience is from the redeemed heart. Obeying God when we don’t want to or don’t feel like it is the most self-sacrificial. If we have a desire not to obey a clear biblical imperative, it is probably a “desire of the flesh.” Often, when we obey when we don’t want to, we are merely refusing to obey a desire of the flesh. The Bible has much to say about obedience to desires (ROM 6:11,12). ALSO, this is a result of your biblical intellect which is a GOOD THING! I love you, but your thinking is fraught with Reformed morbid introspection that they want to use to control you. Stop reading John Piper.
7. Sanctification, justification, Grace being born again.. right now I am so confused by all of this I am doubting what I believe and whether I am on the right path or am I just lost and not aware.
Answer: I can tell you that you are not lost. Lost people don’t concern themselves with these things. You have great potential to please God because you are a thinker and not a mindless follower of men. A good example of the latter is your everyday Calvinist. There is hope for confused Calvinists. Here is Paul’s justification/sanctification construct in the book of Romans: the lost and saved fall under two categories:
1. Under the law. Definition;
A. Enslaved to sin and the obedience to sinful desires.
B. Provoked to sin by the law.
C. Will be judged by the law.
2. Under Grace. Definition;
A. Released from the law.
B. Enslaved to righteousness.
C. Provoked to please God by the law.
D. Will not be judged by the law.
E. Harassed by sinful desires.
Read Romans carefully line by line. Read it thoughtfully and prayerfully. Take the words at face value. I will mail the book today or tomorrow.
Stay the course. In all, stand immovable in the Lord Jesus Christ our beloved King.
Your brother,
paul
On 12.27.2013, the who’s who of New Calvinism will converge at their new capital located in Louisville, KY for the Cross Conference. This is a conference that targets our youth with their outrageous false gospel. This is a movement that is totally out of control and must be confronted. It is time to leave the keyboard and challenge this doctrine face to face.
More Protestant Confusion: “If Everybody is Wrong, What is Right?”
The question has been posed to me thrice this week; twice in person and once by email: “If everybody is wrong, what is right? Can we even know truth if everybody is wrong?” I will answer the question with another one of the rhetorical sort: “Is there a better example of Protestant tradition than this question?”
Notice the link between “truth” and the pronoun, “everybody,” i.e., the most notable Protestant teachers of our day and the past. And with a few Catholics thrown in for good measure. This is classic Protestantism; while denying that truth is embodied in men, that is how we function because of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is “truth” repackaged for the masses by the “Divines.”
So, let me properly rephrase the question in context: “If all of the Divines and those who cite them as authority are wrong, how can we know truth?” That would be primarily the Westminster Divines who directly and indirectly executed people for disagreeing with them. The Westminster Confession is the toast of Protestant orthodoxy.
But prior to this week’s threesome, another caveat has been added to this line of questioning as well: “So, you must be Catholic?” This is more Protestant tradition in our Western culture; you are either Catholic or Protestant. Supposedly, we were in a “Dark Age” under Catholicism and the Reformers started a “reformation.” Some historians even suggest that the Reformers were the historical segue to the Enlightenment Era which is an utterly absurd idea. The Reformers, like their Catholic mother, were vehemently opposed to free reasoning among the people—especially the common breed.
Furthermore, the Reformation credits most of its doctrinal construct to Augustine who was always a Catholic. Protestants are conditioned to be comfortable with these contradictions because of the value placed on the traditions of men. The ideology and spiritual caste mentality is the exact same which led to both having a linear gospel. By linear gospel I mean the idea that sanctification finishes justification. Catholicism, according to the Reformers, propagates the idea that the indwelling Holy Spirit aids the Christian in finishing justification. The Reformers believed that any work of grace inside the believer, even by Christ, made Christians participants in finishing justification because like the Catholic Church, they saw sanctification as links of a chain between justification and glorification.
Hence, the Reformers insisted that ALL grace must take place outside of the believer. The belief that any work of grace takes place inside the believer is, “making sanctification the ground of your justification.” This is why we are not EITHER Protestant OR Catholic: because both hold to a linear false gospel. The biblical gospel is a parallel gospel that radically separates justification and sanctification. Justification is a finished work completely separate from works and sanctification. In other words, sanctification can’t affect justification. This is what separates the biblical gospel from the Protestant/Catholic gospel.
Christ promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His church. The truth of His word has always flourished somewhere in the world. And the propagation of truth has always been possible when a Spirit indwelled believer picks up a Bible and reads it with their own mind.
Paul warned Timothy that there would be a lot of people in our day who are wrong. Wrong people are not the measure of truth, nor can they contribute to it. Those who love truth more than the traditions of men must find like-minded groups. And if you can’t find one—start one.
paul
Tullian Tchividjian is Representative of New Calvinist Anti-Truth
I posted on an article referred to me yesterday written by Tullian Tchividjian. In the post Tchividjian praises his late father for his passive approach to raising Tullian which was dubbed “grace.” And apparently, as one of the premier heretics of our day, Tchividjian thinks he turned out well, thanks to his father’s grace-like rearing. An excerpt:
Years later he told me that he saw all those checks being cashed [checks that Little T-T stole from his father and forged], but he decided not to say anything about it at the time. It didn’t happen immediately (the fruits of grace are always in the future), but that demonstration of unconditional grace was the beginning of God doing a miraculous work in my heart and life. My dad’s literal “turning of the other cheek” gave me a picture of God’s unconditional love that I couldn’t shake…. Steve Brown once said, “Children will run from law and they’ll run from grace. The ones who run from law rarely come back. But the ones who run from grace always come back. Grace draws its own back home.” I ran from grace. It drew me home.
In yesterday’s post I addressed the fundamental misrepresentation of biblical law and grace in all of this. In this post I would like to address Tchividjian’s all-out assault on the plain sense of Scripture. But remember, Tchividjian is representative of New Calvinism and authentic Reformed doctrine in general. Tchividjian has a very strong grasp on what the Reformers believed and taught. And like T-T (pronounced “tee-tee”), they redefined many biblical concepts and realities in opposition to the common sense hermeneutic. In mysticism, common sense is for the common folk.
This isn’t particularly deep; God condemns the passive parenting T-T praises as commendable and supposedly based on grace versus law. As I addressed yesterday, there is no law in the grace of justification, but there is ample grace in the practice of law in sanctification. The fundamental heresy of Calvinism projects the grace of justification onto sanctification which makes law a part of justification. That’s the crux. Fear of law in sanctification reveals a belief that law is also the standard for justification. So, parents who fear law in parenting deprive their children of grace. If for no other reason, it cannot be denied that love is of grace and to deprive your children of discipline is to also deprive them of love:
Hebrews 12:7 – It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
Moreover, one can read of the unspeakable tragedy that fell upon the house of Eli and all of Israel because of his passive parenting of his sons Hophni and Phinehas (starting in 1Samuel 2:12). God also accused Eli of honoring his sons above Him because he would not discipline them.
Again, T-T is representative of the authentic Reformed doctrine sweeping the American church and covertly taking over its institutions. Hindering the needed alternative is Protestant propaganda that the average Christian father is not “qualified” to lead his family and others.
But we must ask ourselves: “We can’t do better than this? Really? We don’t know that Eli’s example is a bad idea? Protestant pastors are on such a higher spiritual plane than we are that the obvious really isn’t true?”
In our day, if you can discern reality—you’re qualified.
paul
Tullian Tchividjian’s Grace Post Reveals His Fundamental Lack of Salvific Knowledge
“If children who have a proper view of salvation run to God, it will be from the condemnation of the law to the blessings of the law in sanctification, not grace apart from the law in both sanctification and justification.”
Tullian Tchivijian doesn’t understand the basics of salvation. This is revealed in a recent post in which he uses his late father’s demonstration of what Tullian calls “grace.” Like all New Calvinists, and for that matter, authentic Calvinists, law and grace are separated into a strict dichotomy. Because sanctification is seen as the horizontal maintenance and completion of vertical justification, the necessary separation of law and grace in justification is also extended to sanctification.
Unfortunately, this reveals an attitude about justification; specifically, that law is a standard for justification that must be maintained in sanctification. Since this is impossible for mortal Christians, law and grace must be kept separate in sanctification as it is in justification. It makes mortality and the new birth mutually exclusive because Christians still clothed in mortality don’t keep the law perfectly. Hence, according to New Calvinism, Christians must be sanctified apart from the law. That’s a huge problem because Christ stated in John 17:17 that God only sanctifies by the truth of His word. Exacerbating the problem is the confusion caused by traditional Protestant dichotomies concerning the Ten Commandments and God’s word. “Law” is a generic term for God’s full counsel contained in the Bible. This is very demonstrable, but I would mention Matthew 5:18 and 1Corithians 14:34. In both cases, more than the Ten Commandments are clearly in view.
The thesis of Tullian’s post is the idea that passive parenting demonstrates grace, while rules in parenting demonstrate law and the idea that children must earn favor with God for salvation. Tullian concludes the post with the idea that children will never return to law, but will always return to grace:
Years later he told me that he saw all those checks being cashed, but he decided not to say anything about it at the time. It didn’t happen immediately (the fruits of grace are always in the future), but that demonstration of unconditional grace was the beginning of God doing a miraculous work in my heart and life. My dad’s literal “turning of the other cheek” gave me a picture of God’s unconditional love that I couldn’t shake….
Steve Brown once said, “Children will run from law and they’ll run from grace. The ones who run from law rarely come back. But the ones who run from grace always come back. Grace draws its own back home.” I ran from grace. It drew me home.
This misrepresents law to our children in two ways. First, it denies children from experiencing the blessings of living life God’s way. This demonstrates the wisdom of God and the fact that He knows what He is talking about. Second, it implies that law and grace are mutually exclusive in justification and sanctification both. Instead of the gospel’s message concerning the different relationships to the law in justification and sanctification, it makes our relationship to the law the same in both. This is a major circumvention of the true gospel. There is no law in justification, and as unbelievers, that which is good (the law) provokes us to sin and threatens to be our judge in the end. But once born again, the law provokes us to righteousness (ROM 6:17-23, 8:3-8). “Grace” is not only unmerited salvation; it is the blessings of sanctification as well. But those blessings primarily come through the law (Matthew 7: 24, 25, James 1:25, Psalm 119). If children who have a proper view of salvation run to God, it will be from the condemnation of the law to the blessings of the law in sanctification, not grace apart from the law in both sanctification and justification.
An unmerited blessing apart from the law in sanctification shows clearly a belief that we did not receive righteousness apart from the law for our justification (ROM 3:21). “Under law” means we are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. “Under grace” means we are enslaved to righteousness rather than sin, will not be judged by the law, and are provoked to righteousness by the law. Paul stated that his mind served the law (ROM 7:25).
Therefore, we are still under the law according to New Calvinism because law is separated from grace in sanctification. It is still a standard for justification. No relationship to the law has been exchanged from unregenerate to regenerate.
That’s why Calvinism is a false gospel. The saved are still “under the law.”
paul
Backdoor Justice for New Calvinists is a Good Start
Protestantism is predicated on confusion. It is no friend of thinking people or critical thinkers. The foundations of Protestantism are elitist, caste, and fraught with mysticism and superstition. The Reformers were murdering bigots. Martin Luther could not be a pastor in any American church upon the reading of The Jews and Their Lies. His statements concerning women would raise some brows as well. The problem would be the “upon the reading” part.
For revival to take place in the American church Protestantism must be scraped completely and the church must return to an emphasis on the priesthood of believers. We must rethink all of the traditions of men that are the American church. It’s called, “orthodoxy.” We must become Bereans and take back the church—the God-breathed word must be our authority and pastors must bow to its authority or be rejected as leaders. We should submit to leaders who submit to the authority of the word. They do not have the authority to be wrong.
New Calvinism is a return to authentic Protestantism amidst anemic Protestant Light that has plagued the American church since the unfortunate arrival of the Pilgrims on America’s shores with their European Calvinistic Puritan virus. They never made it far inland for lack of curiosity and vision. Spiritual tyranny soon followed and has always been repackaged as heroism by the traditions of men. As good Protestant anti-thinkers, we deem their behaviors like a bad hair day. Quakers and women hanging at the end of a rope, their only crime being the desire for some clarification, must not be relevant; our Protestant philosopher kings pat our little heads and tell us so—all is well, nothing here, return to the Protestant merry-go-round and commendable idiocy. Because it is “humble.” Proof? How about Reformed/Calvinistic anti-spiritual abuse bloggers? Where do they think the abuse comes from? Again, like the Puritan issue, behavior is separated from their ideology like the two are mutually exclusive. This is the acceptance of tradition over sound thinking.
Authentic Calvinism is so viral in reasoning and behavior that even the overseers of our present mental leprosy are beginning to reject it. New Calvinists are being fired from religious positions of authority from coast to coast. However, in many cases, it is not known that they are New Calvinists, and in most cases they are dismissed because, “something doesn’t seem right, but we don’t know exactly what it is.” I suppose this is a good start. It’s better to fire people if you can articulate their specific faults, but nevertheless, something is better than nothing. The Feds couldn’t indict Al Capone on what he was really guilty of, so they changed the standards in order to indict him on something else. This is sort of the same thing.
A disclaimer: I know little of the Baptist stripe that supports Northland International University, but they are among the latest evangelical organizations to fire someone in a position of authority; in this case, a university president. The name of this president is Matt Olson, and a cursory observation of his blog reveals the fact that he is a New Calvinist. Literally ten seconds into surfing his blog, I locked in on a post that touts the idea that we can eclipse the majesty of Christ as seen by the world through an emphasis on obedience. So what’s the alternative? What exactly do we emphasize over obedience that doesn’t obscure the “personhood” of Christ? He doesn’t say, and nobody asks—it sounds spiritual—and he is a philosopher king. And so it goes.
Par for the course: the university is not stating specifically why he was terminated, but nevertheless, also par, people will continue to donate money to the college because it is not their place to know what the controversy is. Thou in authority has spoken. Let it be written—let it be done. Besides, the donors probably wouldn’t understand.
But I wonder if those in authority even understand. Frankly, I doubt it, and in many cases those who have the authority to take such action simply don’t know what is really going on while using confidentially as a pious cover to conceal that fact. But it’s a good start.
paul
How Calvinism Turns Brave Hearts into Cold Hearts
I will post a video at the end of this article that elicited the following response from those who posted it on the social network where I watched it:
“Not sure what one could add to or take away from what we have just seen. I am reminded of Matt. 24 when Jesus says that because of lawlessness the hearts of many will grow cold. “Just do it” and laughter throughout the time is just beyond me. Heather was in tears. I wanted to throw up. Beyond disgusting.”
The key to understanding the cold-bloodedness that they observed is in their mention of Matthew 24:12, and the two key words are, BECAUSE, and, LAWLESSNESS. Christ said that “because” of “lawlessness,” love would “grow cold.” The source of this lawlessness is described by Jesus in the previous verse: “many false prophets.”
Now we would do well to examine what Christ meant by the word often translated “lawlessness” and “wickedness” in our English Bibles. These words posit the idea of bad behavior, but that’s not what the actual word that is used by Christ means at all. The word is “anomia.” The “a” is a negative article prefix that means “anti” and “nomia” or nomos, refers to God’s law specifically. The idea of sinful behavior is an entirely different word altogether. Among many used is “hamartia,” or “sin” and these two words are specifically contrasted in 1John 3:4. Sin is defined by any aberration of God’s standard.
In Matthew 24:12, as well as many other passages, an anti-Bible agenda is in view propagated by false prophets.
The world in general becomes cold-hearted by rejecting the law of God written on their hearts and administered by the conscience—either excusing or accusing their actions (ROM 2:15,16). The conscience can eventually be seared if continually violated and ignored (1TIM 4:2). Christians are to keep a clear conscience before God (Acts 24,16 1Peter 3:16, 1TIM 1:5, 3:9, 2TIM 1:3). Keeping a clear conscience before God is obviously behavior focused as judged by the Bible.
One of the monumental misnomers of all time is the idea of “legalism.” This term was formulated by false prophets who really want to steer us away from nomos. Misguided obedience has never been the church’s primary nemesis; it has always been anti-word of God. When the apostle Paul warned those who wanted to be justified by the law, “law,” is in a manner of speaking; Paul was referring to what false teachers purport to be the law, not an actual sincere love for truth and a desire to live by it. This is why James stated that anyone who wanted to be justified by the law had to keep all of it, not a standard of their own choosing (James 2:10). Supposed law-keeping is also often connected to salvation by mere ritual as well. This point cannot be better made than to cite what Paul wrote to the Galatians:
5:2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. 7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you.
We see here, clearly, that Paul was confronting a belief that being circumcised according to law excused them from a truthful obedience to the law. In other words, justification by law-keeping is ALWAYS a dumbed-down version of the law to make adherence for salvation feasible. Paul contrasts this with true obedience to the law in sanctification:
You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
Justification by law-keeping is NEVER an endeavor to obey the truth; it is ALWAYS the replacement of God’s law with the traditions of men—making the law of God, “void.” The Pharisees, the supposed poster children for “legalism,” or “living by the law,” were not guilty of trying to obtain salvation by a sincere obedience to the truth, but rather replaced the law of God with their traditions and made that the standard for salvation (which has no law standard to begin with):
Matthew15:1 – Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat.” 3 He answered them, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.’ 5 But you say, ‘If anyone tells his father or his mother, “What you would have gained from me is given to God,” 6 he need not honor his father.’ So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.
Matthew 23:16 – “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath.’ 19 You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by him who sits upon it. 23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!
25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. 27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
And what were the Pharisees full of “within”? “lawlessness” which is the word “anomia.” The English translation is “anti-law” or “antinomianism.” That’s what the Pharisees were full of within—not “legalism” which is a concept not found in the Bible anywhere by idea or word. There is obedience to truth or anti-truth—no in-between.
“Legalism” fosters the idea that Christians can unwittingly try to please God by obeying the truth as a way to earn their justification. The idea was hatched by the Reformers and is a Neo-Calvinist doctrinal mainstay in our day. The favorite illustration is the Pharisees who supposedly were really, really good at keeping the law and obeying the Bible in an attempt to earn their justification. This is a ploy to create confusion in regard to the law’s relationship to justification and sanctification. The Reformers created immense fear among Christians by making the law’s relationship to justification the same as sanctification. In justification, law has no jurisdiction in regard to the Christian. The Christian is transformed from a status where the law is the standard to be justified (and impossible) to a status where the law informs our sanctification totally separate from justification. So, the law is a standard for sanctification, but in regard to the Christian, the law no longer has jurisdiction over his/her salvation. In Calvinism, the law remains a standard for justification IN salvation that must be maintained until the final judgment.
Because man is created to do works, this makes sanctification very tricky with our eternal destiny hanging in the balance. Calvinists therefore assure Christians that if they live their Christian lives by faith alone—they are playing it safe. As one New Calvinist told me: “If I let Jesus do all the work, He can’t fault me for anything when I stand before Him.” Of course, living in a way that imputes the works of Christ to our Christian walk is very complicated, but be assured; New Calvinists will teach us how to “practice obedient faith” so we can arrive at the final judgment covered by “what Jesus has done, not anything we do”….in our Christian walk. This confounding of the law’s relationship to justification and sanctification makes the Christian walk a minefield with constant danger of “making sanctification the ground of our justification.” We must therefore seek out the Reformed for their secret formula for living the Christian life by faith alone. “Sola Fide” is for justification and sanctification both—that’s the dirty little secret. The Reformed couch the language in terms like “obedient faith.” The Reformers saw faith as a neutral conduit that God uses to impute the perpetual works of Christ to the believer. In other words, Christ’s atoning work is not yet finished for salvation: though accomplished in one period of time, it must be continually appropriated to maintain our just standing. The maintenance of our salvation is in view. Hence, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day.”
But this brings us from fearful hearts to cold hearts. Reformed theology will heap its share of cold-hearted mentality on humanity “because of anomia.” It’s just more anomia dressed in religious garb. This brings my point back to the video that was posted. It is cold-heartedness on steroids regarding the abortion issue. Therefore, the following should make perfect sense to us:
According to the National Right to Life, the total number of abortions in the US is down-33% from its peak in 1980/81- and the greatest decrease is among adolescent girls and young women. Good News!
But if we look further into these statistics, we find disconcerting news for the Church: The abortion rates among professing Christians are commensurate with the rest of the population!
Approx. 560,000 for Protestants (43%)
Approx. 350,000 per year for Catholics (27%)
13% of abortions (approx. 170,000 per year) are performed on self-described “Born Again” or Evangelical Christians (Alan Guttmacher Institute and Physicians for Reproductive Choice, “An Overview of Abortion in the United States,” 2003 and 2008)
Even more disturbing is the fact that these percentages have NOT dropped, even though the number of abortions have in recent years!
These statistics reveal that actually MORE women who profess Christianity are having abortions.
This is what Reformed theology has always done to society. Despite the traditions of men that claim otherwise, the Reformation did not bring light to darkness, it brought more darkness. Post Reformation brought little more than chaos and turmoil to Europe—more than it had ever seen before. It brought tyranny to America in the form of the Salem witch trials, and its contemporary resurgence has resulted in an unprecedented level of abuses in the American church.
It is the epitome of a primary concern of Christ during His ministry: the replacement of the law by the traditions of men resulting in anomia. While waxing eloquent about the Pharisees, Neo-Calvinism is in fact a return to what plagued the apostolic church. To say that Calvinists vaunt the opinions of a litany of past Reformers as authority is an understatement of the most dramatic sort. Even Charles Spurgeon, “the prince of preachers” did little more than regurgitate Reformed tradition. Recently, one Reformed conference was based on the writings of twenty-five Reformed icons. The popular Resolved conferences hosted by John MacArthur highlighted the traditional teachings and legacies of Reformed men of years gone by.
With all of the harping about the Pharisees by Calvinists—they are the Pharisees, and they propagate the same kind of cold-heartedness with it.
Their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law.
~Psalm 119:70
paul
A Typical New Calvinist Membership Covenant: People really Sign These Things?
Recognizing our responsibility to obey all the Scriptures and the need to distinguish ourselves from the world as a community of believers, all members shall affirm their commitment to please God in all areas of life by entering into this covenant:
Humbly depending on the Holy Spirit’s enabling and aiding us, and affirming The Truths We Treasure, we Covenant to Glorify God by striving:
To walk in obedience to the Scriptures by loving the Lord God with all our heart, all our souls, and all our minds;
To walk in harmony with our fellow Christians by loving them as we love ourselves;
To be faithful in our witnessing, to uphold our testimony, to defend the doctrines of the Word of God, and to expand the Kingdom of God;
To be faithful in edifying, exhorting, rebuking, discipling, encouraging, praying for, and meeting the needs of the Body of Christ;
To exercise our spiritual gifts to build up and to serve one another;
To be submissive to one another in Christian love;
To regularly attend the services of the church and not forsake the assembling of ourselves together;
To be submissive to the God-ordained elders as to those who give an account for our souls;
To give heed to the ministry of the Word;
To attend the ordinances of the church faithfully, approaching them in a serious, spiritual, and holy attitude;
To honor the Lord in our finances in all things including regular, proportionate giving to the church;
To be consistent in our own study of the Word;
To love our wives as Christ loved the church or to submit to our husbands and to teach and train our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord;
To extend the Lordship of Christ into all areas of our lives;
To abstain from practices harmful to our physical bodies and injurious to our testimony;
To purpose that if we relocate we will, as soon as possible, unite with another church of like faith, where we can carry out the spirit of this Covenant and the principles of God’s Word. (Proverbs 13:24; 23:13; 29:15; Malachi 3:8-11; Acts 2:42, 47; Romans 8:3-4; 1 Corinthians 15; 16:2; 2 Corinthians 5:11-21; 12:13; Ephesians 4:11-14; 5:23-24; 6:1-4; Philippians 1:3-6; Colossians 4:2-4; 2 Timothy 3:16-4:4; Hebrews 10:24, 25; 13:17; James 2:12; 5:13-14; 1 Peter 2:5,9; 3:7; 1 John 2:19).
3. Requirements for Membership
Any person who desires to unite in membership with the Chapel must profess repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ as Savior, submit to Him as Lord and Sovereign, be Biblically baptized following this profession, and must not be under Biblically administered church discipline. Having met these requirements, this person shall joyfully enter into this Covenant with this people, expressing willingness to follow the beliefs and practices of this community, and evidencing willingness to submit to its Elders.
4. Admission to Membership
The Elders shall be responsible to receive applicants into membership. This shall include reviewing the application, conducting an interview, and evaluating their standing when coming from another church. Upon determining that the applicants meet the requirements, the Elders shall present them to the church as members.
5. Categories of Membership
Resident Membership is for those active, participating members who comprise the majority of the Chapel. Associate Membership, having all the privileges and responsibilities of membership except that of voting, may be extended by the Elders to those who will be absent for an extended period of time, or who are at the Chapel for a short period of time and wish to minister while maintaining membership in their home churches.
6. Congregational Voting Privilege
To be eligible to vote at congregational meetings, one must be a resident member on the day of the vote, at least sixteen (16) years of age, in attendance at the meeting and not have forfeited their voting privilege by being placed on the inactive list or being subject to discipline. The Chapel may permit absentee ballots in exceptional circumstances as requested of and granted by the Elders on a case-by-case basis.
7. Removal from Membership
Membership will end by physical death, transfer of membership to churches holding to Biblical doctrine, or by the process of corrective discipline ending in
Protected: The Potter’s House: TANC Theology Test and Discussion
Enter your password to view comments.
Tim Hawkins is a Funny Guy, But His Gospel is False
“The gospel is a call to those under the law to be born again under grace. Those under the law are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. Those under grace are no longer in bondage to sin, are now provoked to righteousness by the law, and will not be judged by the law. Hawkins, like all New Calvinists, insists that we not live by the very law that provokes us to righteousness.”
I have always enjoyed the comedy of the tremendously gifted Tim Hawkins and never made it a point to find out what he believes about the gospel. If a good comedian who doesn’t need smut to make people laugh sticks to comedy, what he believes about the gospel is between him and God.
But if he is going to use his act to spread a false gospel, that is a whole other matter, and unfortunately, that’s the case. Frankly, I don’t care if Hawkins has to be like most in our day that chase after every wind of doctrine as long as he keeps it to himself; but unfortunately, he doesn’t. In the following video he promotes the New Calvinist progressive justification that dominates the present-day church. Hawkins makes several statements while presenting the gospel in the following clip (end of post) that are blatant scriptural contradictions.
Hawkins presented the gospel to a Christian audience in the clear stated context of sanctification, or worded another way: our Christian walk. He began by saying that God always works first in our lives; i.e., everything we do is first initiated by God. Of course, that’s not true. Throughout the Bible God states that he will act if we do certain things first. In New Calvinist circles, the following is in vogue: teaching that Christians do works that they are unaware are in the Bible because it is Christ doing the work and not us. Even John Macarthur has been teaching this recently.
Hawkins followed by saying that being a Christian means resting in what Christ has done, and he prefaced several like remarks with, “that’s the gospel.” Is that true? Our Christian walk is resting in what Jesus has done, and that’s the gospel? Many citations from the Bible that refute this notion could be stated—here are a few:
1Thessalonians 4:9 – Now concerning brotherly love you have no need for anyone to write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another, 10 for that indeed is what you are doing to all the brothers throughout Macedonia. But we urge you, brothers, to do this more and more,
Romans 12:10 – Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11 Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord.
1Peter 1:5 – For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This “rest” concept can certainly be applied to justification, but like all New Calvinists Hawkins applies it to sanctification as well. Christians not knowing the difference is a huge problem in our day. After promoting the idea that Christians should rest in their Christian walk, Hawkins verbalized the familiar New Calvinist truism that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. No, our sins were imputed to Christ, and the Father’s righteousness was imputed to us. That’s the gospel, that’s biblical double imputation, not the New Calvinist’s version of double imputation where Christ’s obedience is imputed to our sanctification as part of the atonement.
Then Hawkins espoused the all-familiar New Calvinist “Jesus didn’t come so you can get your act together and be a good person—the gospel and Christianity is not about behavior modification.” Really, do I have to cite Scripture references to refute this idea? Is that where we are in all of this? Such statements are not rejected out of hand by Christians in our day? And why isn’t Christianity supposedly about behavior modification IN SANCTIFICATION? Because that would be the same as behavior modification IN JUSTIFICATION. See the problem? This is the crux; the fusion of justification and sanctification requiring a sanctification by faith alone. Works in sanctification is the same as works in justification. It’s maintaining your justification in sanctification by “resting.” Unfortunately, these anti-gospel ideas brought applause from the audience. We truly live in perilous times.
But where Hawkins drives the New Calvinist spear through the heart of the true gospel is in the following statement:
It’s about life transformation. He didn’t come to make bad people good he came to make dead people alive….You’re living by the law—you’re living by works and it’s killing you.
This is a fundamental rejection of the law’s relationship to the gospel. It makes the relationship of the law to justification the same as its relationship to sanctification. This must necessarily exclude works of the law in sanctification. Such exclusion of the law in sanctification shows us what one really believes about justification: it’s not a finished work and needs to be maintained by OUR passivity in sanctification which is supposedly not a work—regardless of its REQUIRMENT to maintain the continued imputation of Christ’s works to our sanctification in order to maintain justification. Many New Calvinists refer to this as the “saving works” (note the plural rather than the singular act of going to the cross) of Christ. James and the apostle Paul warn that this is grievous error and a false gospel. It shows this comedian’s basic lack of understanding in regard to the gospel.
The gospel is a call to those under the law to be born again under grace. Those under the law are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. Those under grace are no longer in bondage to sin, are now provoked to righteousness by the law, and will not be judged by the law. Hawkins, like all New Calvinists, insists that we not live by the very law that provokes us to righteousness.
In his New Calvinist ignorance of the true gospel, Hawkins continued his treatise by adding the idea that God uses the law to “crush US” and show us our continual need for a savior….to which I will add, IN SANCTIFICATION. Hence, justification is perpetual. Hawkins then stated that Christ came to “fulfill the law FOR US” in sanctification. Not true. When Christ said in His Sermon on the Mount that He came to fulfill the law, how He intends to do that is clarified by the apostle Paul:
Romans 8:1 – There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Thessalonians 3:8 - Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. 10 By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother.
Like all New Calvinists Hawkins defines Christians as unregenerate, as those unable to keep the law, and even if we could keep it, the standard is the same as before we were “released from the law (ROM 7:6)” as a standard for justification: perfection. Therefore, per New Calvinism, Christians are still under the law (and therefore defined as biblically unregenerate) because the old man that must meet the perfection of the law’s standard for those not under grace is still alive (ROM 7:1-3). They did not die with Christ and the penalty for all sin that died also with Christ. Instead of perfection being the GOAL in sanctification, it is the STANDARD for progressive justification; therefore, Christ must keep the law for us in sanctification. Again, this reveals what is really believed about justification by Calvinists: it’s an UNFINISHED work.
Hawkins completed his treatise by promoting the New Calvinist way to have assurance of salvation; i.e. look at what Christ states about our position in the Bible and not our behavior. Really? Again, do I have to give biblical citations here? Is our state really that bad to where I would have to point out biblical citations to refute this idea?
New Calvinists continually point to the agreed upon train wreck that is American Christianity and claim to have the cure in authentic Calvinism. But wait a minute here: they have had majority control of the House for ten years now—something isn’t adding up.
Like the blood lollipops with a knife blade as a stick that Eskimos use to kill wolves, the New Calvinists tell us to keep licking. It’s a trick that works so well on wolves that they are now using it on the sheep. They present the law to Christians in the exact same way that it is to be presented to the unregenerate. That’s why we supposedly need the gospel of the cross every day. Therefore, Tim Hawkins is no longer funny. Though his comedy is a wonderful work in Jesus’ name—he uses it to propagate works of anomia.
paul
Pedestrian Christian Run Over By Wartburg for Calling a Heretic “Sophomoric”
I consider Alex Guggenheim, the author of The Pedestrian Christian blog a good friend of this ministry. Every now and then, I find time to swing by and read his stuff. Wish I could do that more often, but this ministry is growing and I am doing the work of several people.
As Susan and I learn more and more about the Protestant tradition, the list of things to write about and the consideration of approaches is very long, so we have to work by priority. Low on the list is the tsunami of illogical functioning and reasoning by many discernment bloggers. However, after reading Alex’s report concerning the treatment he received over at Wartburg Watch, I am motivated to point some things out. Is this because I like Alex and am therefore offended by the treatment he received? Probably, but nevertheless, the point is worthy of a temporary jettison to the top of the list.
I will get to what happened to Alex specifically in a bit, but in order to lay some groundwork first, I will cite a paragraph from his account:
The Wartburg Watch blog, as I have observed, inaugurated itself with an emphasis on Neo-Calvinism, ecclesiastical malfeasance of many sorts but particularly with sexual misconduct or abuse and patriarchalism/complementarism excesses or even its existence. Something needed in general, though I certainly do not subscribe to all of their criticisms or theological persuasions.
And apparently, because of what happened to Alex, and what I have seen likewise among many discernment bloggers, there are good New Calvinists and naughty New Calvinists. I believe “Deb and Dee,” the Wartburg authors, call them the “Calvinistas.” New Calvinism is a doctrine; specifically, the false doctrine of progressive justification. This is just the FACT of the matter. Anybody who propagates New Calvinism is a heretic, plain and simple. I have been researching this doctrine for almost six years now, and as will be demonstrated in our upcoming June conference, there is absolutely nothing about this doctrine that is true. It denies the new birth, rejects the Trinity, rejects sanctification, and is vehemently anti-Semitic.
While referring to New Calvinists as “Calvinistas,” Wartburg strongly endorses and networks with none other than Wade Burleson. Burleson is a strong advocate of Jon Zens who is one of the forefathers of the present-day New Calvinist movement. Burleson propagates progressive justification in its purest form along with the accompanied belief that the Bible is a mystical gospel meta-narrative. What his preaching seems to project is of no concern of mine; the quality of the milk is determined by the cow. Furthermore, according to Burleson, he is enamored by the Puritans while posing himself as an understanding advocate for the spiritually abused. Wartburg, affirming such accordingly, sponsors an e-church that features his preaching live on every Sunday. Anyone who knows the history of Puritanism would find this ironic.
In discernment blogging, there is an illogical disconnecting between doctrine and behavior as if the two are totally unrelated. If you applied the same logic to Nazism, there would be good Nazis and bad Nazis because some Nazis where good Lutherans who didn’t work the ovens at the concentration camps. It is generally recognized that not every Nazi behaved badly, but that the ideology is the problem. Leave it to Christians to abandon common sense on that wise. I use the Nazi example because New Calvinists, though often dressed in the demeanor of Mr. Rogers, and their female counterparts that of Mary Poppins, are among the most vicious and heartless homosapiens walking the face of the earth. Trust me, if they had the marriage between themselves and the state that they seek, the behavior would be no different than it was in Geneva. This is a certainty. As it presently stands, they improvise through other means.
The thing that really gets me is the anti-spiritual abuse bloggers who hold to Reformed theology and even call themselves Calvinists. This is where the Nazi example is apt. This utterly disconnects history from reality and Christ’s declaration of, “By their fruits you will know them.”
Alex keyboarded into one of these illogical endeavors over at Wartburg. They were actually pitting the supposed virtue of New Calvinist Thabiti Anyabwile against the supposed racism of New Calvinist Doug Wilson. As an aside, let me mention that John Piper endorses Doug Wilson and Anyabwile endorses Piper but Anyabwile doesn’t endorse Wilson but Piper does because Wilson “has the gospel right” and he also endorses Anyabwile and so it goes. Somewhere in all of the discussion, the obvious is missed: Wilson is the one with the most virtue because he is consistent. The South was practically an unofficial Presbyterian theocracy during the Civil War. The theological endorsement of slavery during that time by the Presbyterian Church is confirmed by a cursory observation of American history. And Anyabwile is a Calvinist. And the Prebyterian church was founded on Calvinism, and yet, Anyabwile is taking on Wilson for merely connecting with their (singular) historical roots. And by the way, Wilson’s assessment overall is not far from the mark.
But apparently, this absurd contradiction is ok because Anyabwile is (according to Dee during her scolding of Alex), “walking while black.” I have news for Wartburg, Calvinism has a large share in two world Holidays: Martin Luther King Day, and the International Religious Freedom Day. Their share in the former is hefty, and their share in the latter is 100% as that holiday was founded after Calvinistic Puritans hung three Quakers in Boston for “walking while Quaker.” What is up with all of this? Why do Neo-Calvinists get a pass on their history while Nazi’s don’t—the connection between Nazism and Reformed theology another conversation notwithstanding to boot?
Alex Guggenheim is too damn nice: calling Anyabwile theologically “sophomoric” is like describing Jeffrey Damher as one over-curious about culinary issues. Anyabwile is a walking hypocritical heretic and his color has nothing to do with anything. I firmly believe that New Calvinists laugh about getting the church tangled up in these worthless discussions.
Wartburg did get something partially right in the article that Alex commented on, but it unfortunately adds to their grossly misinformed promotion of Anyabwile:
I disagree with Wilson in the matter. Slavery almost always involves racism since it is the forced servitude of people groups. The South’s slaves were black. Slavery results in the perception that said group is inferior and deserves to be enslaved. This attitude, after the Civil War, resulted in the separation of whites from blacks. “Separate but equal” was anything but equal and it took the Civil Rights movement to expose the ugliness of this entrenched view of the superiority of the white race.
The proper term is CASTE SYSTEM. And NO, it is NOT fundamentally racist. Racism is a result of the root: spiritual caste systems. Caste is not fundamentally racist—it is fundamentally spiritual. A dear friend of this ministry, church historian John Immel would argue that it is fundamentally ideological and philosophical. He would contend that theological doctrine is the result of the ideology. Well, I would agree because theological error is separate from the Bible anyway and a mere human ideology by default. Either way, racism is a mere residual consequence of the core problem.
And Calvinism is a spiritual caste spectacle. It is predicated on preordained enlightened mediators ruling over the unenlightened masses on behalf of God, whether perceived as a cosmic force or a person. This concept is the bedrock of ancient Paganism which gave birth to Hinduism, was integrated into Socratism by Plato, became Neo-Platonism and gave birth to Gnosticism and the Nicolaitanism (translated: “power over the laity”) that plagued the first century church, was adopted by Augustine and Gregory, and passed on intellectually to their mentorees Luther and Calvin. And the results are always the same. Nazism was a horrific brew of Hinduism and Augustinianism, and Calvinistic fruit does not fall far from that tree. The aforementioned spiritual caste system drives Calvinism and the Neo-Calvinistic movement of our day in particular. Patriarchy, racism, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., are all results of that fundamental ideology.
We are the laity; and Calvinistic elders, according to Al Mohler (a popular target of Wartburg), are “appointed” to save us from, “ignorance.” And our response is to act like we need it while whining about the spiritual abuse that always comes with it. For the most part, New Calvinists do not take discernment bloggers seriously for the following reason: like dumb fish that swim after every breadcrumb thrown over the bridge by children, we will chase every red herring thrown out the window by New Calvinists.
Like the racism issue.
paul
Once Again, Atrocity Showcases Biblical Illiteracy
Christians don’t have to be ignorant; it’s a choice. The Bible says that we have the mind of Christ, so it would seem that we would want to prove that. The Bible also says that we are heaven’s ambassadors on earth, so like it or not, countries are judged by their representation.
This post addresses two questions from a biblical perspective on the Boston bombing: why does God allow evil in the world? And, how could two young boys with so much going for them and leading exceptional lives do such a thing? After reading several Christian articles that always arise in these types of events, I have decided to weigh in.
First, God doesn’t allow evil in the world. The wrath of God is revealed against sin on a daily basis. Those who don’t suffer God’s wrath presently for their evil deeds are storing up wrath for the final judgment (ROM 1:18, 2:5). Those who ask why God allows evil in the world are guilty of doing just that. We are all guilty of allowing evil in the world to one degree or another. If such a question were posed to God face to face, He might answer this way:
“I will answer your question if you answer my question; why do YOU allow evil in the world?”
Then, perhaps God would answer the silence this way: So, let me tell you why I allow your evil;
ROM 2:3 – Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?
In this case, God is the accused, and the question probably needs to be reworded: “I understand why God allows evil in the world that is no big deal, like when I say unkind things to my wife, but I am talking about, you know, the big sins like murder. Like, I am not talking about ‘mistakes’”
Secondly, from a biblical perspective, two young men who seemed to have it all together getting up one morning and partaking in mass murder makes perfect sense. This is because the Bible warns us in regard to the power of ONE—bad—Idea. Christians who then do not take the Bible seriously start writing stupid articles. Scripture states, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump.” What do we think that means? This is the dire importance of pure TRUTH, what Peter called “the pure milk of the word.” In Scripture, we are warned to “guard our hearts and minds.” Note this passage particularly:
2Corinthians 10:5 – We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
Why EVERY thought? Because it only takes one to get the ball rolling.
Authorities seem to think that the younger brother was following the older. Being a follower can wreck your whole life and is a powerful temptation, but deep down, many Christians disbelieve the idea that at one time there was only one righteous family living on earth and everyone else was following evil. This is evident because Christians turn themselves into pretzels answering the first question.
There was a flood because God doesn’t allow evil. Evil gets a temporary reprieve in hopes that God’s mercy will lead many to repentance.
paul
TANC Theology Test
Answers and discussion during Potter’s House PM Bible Study. Take test here: Test
Print test here: New Form 4_20_13
Calvinism’s Denial of Scripture, the New Birth, and the Trinity
Part and parcel with being a cultist is the ability to communicate your false doctrine in a truthful sounding way. Martin Luther and John Calvin were perhaps the best there has ever been at that.
Volume one of The Truth About New Calvinism sought to primarily do one thing: document the contemporary history of New Calvinism and address some of its doctrinal quirks. New Calvinists claim to have rediscovered the authentic Reformation gospel; I didn’t address that question in volume one because much additional research was required to answer that question. Volume two answers that question, and the answer is “yes.” New Calvinists have the authentic Reformed doctrine down pat, and if not for them, we probably would have never known what the Reformers really believed. I believe John MacArthur has adopted New Calvinism because he was rightfully convinced by John Piper and others that this is what the Reformers believed. In other words, MacArthur’s enamoration with the Reformation motif has led him astray.
What makes Calvinism, the articulation of Lutheranism, so deceptive is the emphasis on two metaphysical realities and the interpretation of all reality through that dualism: our sinfulness and God’s holiness. Much can be written and agreed upon in regard to these two points. So, Sunday after Sunday we hear sermons based on these two biblical concepts only, and probably without much complaint and in many cases much praise.
But this isn’t the full counsel of God, and the overemphasis on these two points and the exclusion of all else eventually leads to the unenviable results. The apostle Paul equated teaching the full of God from house to house night and day with not having the blood of men on his hands.
This brings us to the Emphasis hermeneutic. This is THE Reformation epistemology. This is their key to putting the Bible into use. Luther laid the framework in his Heidelberg Disputation to the Augustine Order and Calvin articulated it in the Institutes of the Christian Religion. In the first sentence of chapter one, Calvin introduces Luther’s dualism, and the rest of the Institutes flow from this concept. All of the Institutes build on the very first sentence that states wisdom is known by knowing us and knowing God more and more. For all practical purposes, the knowledge of good and evil. This is Luther’s Theology of the Cross in his disputation which was written six months after the 95 Theses. The latter was the moral protest; the former is the foundation of Reformation theology. Almost everything that the New Calvinists teach can be found in Luther’s Disputation including John Piper’s Christian Hedonism.
Luther believed that all reality was to be interpreted through the cross story. And by the way, as an aside, this is the first tenet of New Covenant Theology. Luther’s construct was strictly dualist: God’s story, or our story—the cross story or the glory story. A matter of emphasis. Certainly, Luther concurred that many things other than the cross story are TRUE, and to some extent VALUABLE for lesser concerns apart from the Christian faith, but in Luther’s view, any religious matter that distracted from the cross work of Christ diminished God’s glory and in most cases emphasized us instead; i.e., the glory story—our glory, not God’s.
The Emphasis hermeneutic is a Gnostic concept. This shouldn’t surprise us as Augustine’s penchant for Gnosticism is well known and Luther/Calvin were his mentorees. Calvin cites Augustine, on average, every 2.5 pages in the Institutes. Earthly things are a shadow of reality and the “true and the good.” Through education and knowledge one can obtain understanding of the true and the good. In Luther’s construct, Christ was the full representation of the true and the good. Christ is the true and the good; as New Calvinists state it, He is “THE gospel.” The gospel is the true and the good. He is the SUN (Son). The sun/shadows interpretive illustration is key to understanding this Gnostic/Platonist concept.
This interpretive method enables Calvinists to deem many things true, but to the extent that we allow these things to take away from a laser focus on the source of all wisdom and life, THE SUN, sanctification is diminished. Let me repeat that, because it is the crux:
This interpretive method enables Calvinists to deem many things true, but to the extent that we allow these things to take away from a laser focus on the source of all wisdom and life, THE SUN, sanctification is diminished
The diminishing of sanctification: to the extent that we focus on anything else but Christ and the reason for the cross—our wickedness. The focus must be Christ’s crosswork. EVERYTHING points to Christ and interprets Christ. Anything that is true but doesn’t lead to more understanding of Christ casts a SHADOW on reality and wisdom. It is focusing on the shadow caused by whatever is blocking the Sun/Son. Anything that is not seen in a Chrsitocentric reality “ECLIPSES THE SON/SUN.”
Hence, seeing biblical commands in the Scripture as something we should see and do is the what? The glory story. It’s about “what we do, not what Christ has done” a favorite New Calvinist truism. Therefore, biblical imperatives are to be seen in their “gospel context” as a standard that Christ kept for us and imputed to our sanctification. The cross story is then lifted up because it shows Christ’s holiness as set against our inability to uphold the law in sanctification.
To do otherwise is to “eclipse the Son.” Once you know how to look for this, you can see it everywhere in the American church. John MacArthur wrote the Forward to the Rick Holland book, “Uneclipsing the Son” in which this Gnostic paradigm is the very theses. In the Forward, MacArthur states in no uncertain terms that to emphasize “ANYTHING” or “ANYONE” other than Christ is to diminish sanctification. “Pastor” Steve Lawson, in an address at the 2012 Resolved Conference implored young pastors to “come out from the shadows.” Pseudo biblical counselor Michael Emlet framed it as “CrossTalk” in his book that bears that same title. It is a cute play on words that frames any talk other than Christ’s crosswork as crosstalk, a technical communications term that refers to interference from multiple telephone lines transmitting over each other resulting in many jumbled conversations being heard. In this case, shadows and confusion are the same.
Also, another way that this is framed is in regard to our fruits, or good works. By emphasizing anything we do, we are “making a good thing the best thing” or “making the fruit the root.” In other words, to emphasize fruit obscures the root that gives the tree life: Christ. We should focus on Christ only which results in “transformation.” But “transformation” isn’t personal transformation. If we are transformed, that is the what? Right, the glory story. Here, the Calvinistic lingo is very subtle; instead of us changing via the new creaturehood of the new birth, we are transformed “into the image of Christ.” We don’t change, we experience MANIFESTATIONS.
In the recent 2013 Shepherds’ Conference MacArthur used John 3:3 to make a case that our good works are like “the wind blowing.” We feel its effects, we see its effects, but of course, we have no control over the wind. Like Luther, and according to authentic Reformed doctrine, MacArthur believes that these experiences of the wind are rebirths experienced by joy. That’s the Reformed definition of the new birth: a joyful experience of the wind accompanied by joy. This is why MacArthur made the absurd statement in the book “Slave” that obedience is never bittersweet, but always sweet. Right, apparently, Abraham was singing praises while on the way to drive a knife through his son.
This doctrine utterly dismisses any and all work, even by Christ, occurring inside the believer. “Faith” is in us, but according to Reformation doctrine, is not a work. Therefore, anything spoken of as being IN US, is actually, BY FAITH. Which is not a work. FAITH is therefore the conduit that makes ALL works taking place outside of us possible. This is why the doctrine is referred to as “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of Us.” Anything inside of us is subjective, or shadowy, because it involves the glory story.
Moreover, the work that we see outside of us is also subjective because it deals with wind-like occurrences. And because we are a “reflector” of the image, it will be difficult to know whether the occurrence are through our “own efforts” or the wind. This is why Luther stated in his Disputation that Christians should not be concerned with works or their manifestations. Even when it is the wind and not us, we “see through a glass dimly” and the wind is using a “dull instrument.” New Calvinists call this, “the subjective power of an objective gospel.” We focus on the objective through gospel contemplationism, and leave the manifestations to Christ. This is why John MacArthur has stated that it is his job to explain the biblical text, and then leave the results to the Spirit.
But even in regard to the Holy Spirit and God the Father, they are seen as members of the Trinity that better define Christ. To do otherwise would be to “eclipse the Son.” Remember, MacArthur said, “anything” or “ANYBODY.” It means just that, and is indicative of a large body of Reformed thought.
This undermines and denies the full counsel of God, the new birth, and the Trinity.
paul
NOTES
Forward to Uneclipsing the Son by John MacArthur:
As Christians we have one message to declare: “Jesus Christ, and Him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). “For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake” (2 Corinthians 4:5; cf. 1 Corinthians 2:2; Galatians 6:14).
Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts.
Christ is the perfect image of God (Hebrews 1); the theme of Scripture (Luke 24); the author of salvation (Hebrews 12:2); the one proper object of saving faith (Romans 10:9-10); and the goal of our sanctification (Romans 8:2). No wonder Scripture describes the amazing growth-strategy of the early church in these terms: “They ceased not to teach and preach Jesus Christ” (Acts 5:42). That is the only blueprint for church ministry that has any sanction from Scripture.
The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: “And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (emphasis added). We don’t “see” Christ literally and physically, of course (1 Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
As believers gaze at the glory of their Lord—looking clearly, enduringly, and deeply into the majesty of His person and work—true sanctification takes place as the Holy Spirit takes that believer whose heart is fixed on Christ and elevates him from one level of glory to the next. This is the ever-increasing reality of progressive sanctification; it happens not because believers wish it or want it or work for it in their own energy, but because the glory of Christ captures their hearts and minds. We are transformed by that glory and we begin to reflect it more and more brightly the more clearly we see it. That’s why the true heart and soul of every pastor’s duty is pointing the flock to Christ, the Great Shepherd.
After more than four decades of pastoral ministry, I am still constantly amazed at the power of Christ-centered preaching. It’s the reason I love preaching in the gospels. But I discovered long ago that the glory of Christ dominates Romans, Galatians, Colossians, Hebrews, Revelation—and the rest of Scripture as well. Focusing on that theme has led my own soul and our congregation to a fuller, richer knowledge of Christ—loving Him, worshipping Him, serving Him and yearning for the day when we shall be like Him, having seen Him in His glory (1 John 3:2).
Our prayer is that of Paul: “that I may know Him!” (Philippians 3:10). The apostle knew Him well as Savior and Lord (having been privileged to be the last person ever to see the resurrected Christ face to face, according to 1 Corinthians 15:8)—but never could Paul plumb the rich, sweet depths of the glories of Christ, the inexhaustible, infinite Treasure. Far from allowing Christ to be eclipsed—even partially—by any other object or affection, every believer should pursue with relentless zeal the “full knowledge of the glory of God” provided by a fervent concentration “on the face of Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6).
The Christian life is Christ—knowing Him in the height and breadth of His revelation, loving Him for the greatness of His grace, obeying Him for the blessing of His promises, worshipping Him for the majesty of His glory, and preaching Him for the honor of His Name: “But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen” (2 Peter 3:18).
No greater subject exists than Jesus Christ—no greater gift can be given than uplifting His glory for another soul to see it and be changed by it. This book will be a wonderful help to anyone who senses the need to orient one’s life and message properly with a Christ-centered focus. It is full of fresh, practical, and memorable spiritual insight that will show you how to remove whatever obstacle is blocking your vision of the Son
and allow His light to blind you with joy.
—John MacArthur
Pastor-Teacher, Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, California
April, 2011
John Piper: Don’t Waste Your Life (pp. 58-59).
The sunbeams of blessing in our lives are bright in and of themselves. They also give light to the ground where we walk. But there is a higher purpose for these blessings. God means for us to do more than stand outside them and admire them for what they are. Even more, he means for us to walk into them and see the sun from which they come. If the beams are beautiful, the sun is even more beautiful. God’s aim is not that we merely admire his gifts, but, even more, his glory.
Now the point is that the glory of Christ, manifest especially in his death and resurrection, is the glory above and behind every blessing we enjoy. He purchased everything that is good for us. His glory is where the quest of our affections must end. Everything else is a pointer – a parable of this beauty. When our hearts run back up along the beam of blessing to the source in the blazing glory of the cross, then the worldliness of the blessing is dead, and Christ crucified is everything.
This is no different than the goal of magnifying the glory of God that we saw in Chapter 2. Christ is the glory of God. His blood-soaked cross is the blazing center of that glory. By it he bought for us every blessing – temporal an eternal. And we don’t deserve any. He bought them all. Because of Christ’s cross, the wrath of God is taken away. Because of his cross all guilt is removed, and sins are forgiven, and perfect righteousness is imputed to us, and the love of God is poured out in our hearts by the Spirit, and we are being conformed to the image of Christ.
Therefore every enjoyment in this life and the next that is not idolatry is a tribute to the infinite value of the cross of Christ – the burning center of the glory of God. And thus a cross-centered, cross-exalting, cross-saturated life is a God-glorifying life – the only God-glorifying life. All others are wasted.
Calvinists Pretend That They Think Salvation Changes Us: A Picture Story
“This is why the present-day Reformed counseling culture led by the likes of David Powlison is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity.”
John Piper once stated in an interview that Protestants are not ready for the hard truth of the Reformed authentic gospel. And what is that truth? It is the “truth” that salvation doesn’t change us. They say, “We are transformed into Christ’s image, and “We are sanctified” etc., but they believe no such thing and for our sake lie about it because we are not “ready” for the “hard truth.” This is why the present-day Reformed counseling culture led by the likes of David Powlison is the biggest scam ever perpetrated on Christianity. Christians go to counseling because they think we can change with God’s help and for His glory, and the anticipation of happiness. Powlison has built an empire on allowing Christians to believe that initially like we allow our children to believe in Santa Clause. That way, he can draw them in and “help” them with his superior spiritual knowledge.
What is that knowledge? It is the “centrality of the objective gospel outside of us.” John Piper states it plainly: if any work of grace happens in us at all, it makes sanctification the ground of our justification. I document all of this in much detail in chapter four of The Truth About New Calvinism. Below is a picture that illustrates this. It was published by a Reformed think tank that Graeme Goldsworthy was involved in. Like the following pictures, you can click on it for a larger picture:
Let’s look at other Reformed illustrations that show clearly that they deliberately deceive by pretending they believe that Christians change. REMEMBER, these are their illustrations, NOT mine:
In the first chart, we only grow by the same two things that saved us: knowledge of our sin, and knowledge of God’s holiness. This is why we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” But, in this chart, what is growing? Us? No, the cross. We don’t grow, the cross grows. Besides, if we grow, that circumvents the “growth” process right? If we get better, the other half of Reformed epistemology does not keep going down but becomes more level—making the cross smaller. No?
Look at the other chart that is really the same concept turned up instead of sideways. In the heart shape it claims transformation, but again, a second thought tells us that this couldn’t be what they are really thinking. If we get better, it destroys the Reformed metaphysical centrality of the objective gospel outside of us which is predicated on a deeper and deeper knowledge of how evil we are.
Furthermore, a good demonstration of the deliberate deception afoot is Paul David Tripp’s book, “How People Change.” They don’t believe we change, that’s a lie. Calvin’s total depravity also applies to the saints in Reformed theology. I document this in False Reformation. An illustration from Tripp’s book is integrated into the other illustrations by me to demonstrate this:
So then, what do these guys really believe about change? Well, it starts with gospel contemplationism which leads to “manifestations” of “the true and the good.” See the man in the first picture? See how he is meditating on all of the stuff outside of him? Through contemplationism, it is kinda like standing in the rain. The world sees the gospel, which in this illustration is the rain as a gospel “manifestation,” and as Christians we experience and feel the rain, but it has nothing to do with us or anything going on inside of us. For all practical purposes (in his general session address at the 2013 Shepherds’ Conference), John MacArthur likened it to a manifestation of the wind. You feel it and see its effects, but it is a force that is completely outside of us. He attributed Nicodemus’ later obedience after conversion to a mere blowing of the wind and not anything that Nicodemus could be credited with. We are talking MANEFESTATIONS here and not anything we do. It is similar to the concept of birthing the spiritual realm into the material realm.
In other words, when it gets right down to it—it’s Eastern mysticism. It began with the ancient paganism that saturated early civilization and morphed into Hinduism. Then Plato integrated the philosophy of Socrates with Hinduism. From there, it became Gnosticism which has all of the caste elements of Hinduism, and not by accident. The Reformed connections to Eastern mysticism are really no big secret and well-known among church historians.
Cults all come from the cradle of society and its spiritual caste. That’s why cults are innumerable and predicated on CONTROL. A characteristic not absent from Calvinism by any stretch of the imagination. The Gnostic Nicolaitans wreaked havoc on the first century church and the word means “conquerors of the lay people.” The name Nicodemus comes from Nicolaitans, so before his conversion, Nicodemus was probably guilty of what MacArthur said he wasn’t guilty of,
being a Calvinist.
paul
Preaching the Gospel to Ourselves: The Devil is in the Details
After nearly six years of research on the Reformation I have come to the conclusion that like all cults, its proponents deliberately deceive by changing the definition of familiar terms and using subtle verbiage. They condone this because they don’t think we are “ready” for the hard truth of the authentic Reformed gospel. John Piper said that outright during an interview while answering the question, “What would you say to the Pope if you had two minutes with him?”
A good example of this subtle deception is a recent article posted on SBC Voices. Here it is:
If you search through the blogosphere, you’ll see some who advocate Christians “preaching the gospel to ourselves” daily, and you’ll see others who are staunchly against “preaching the gospel to themselves.” I think some who speak against “preaching the gospel to ourselves” misunderstand and/or misrepresent what we mean. Here is why I preach the gospel to myself. Out of the gospel flows both justification (being declared righteous by Christ alone) and sanctification (the immediate positional adoption by Christ into God’s kingdom, and the progressive setting apart of our lives from the Devil’s kingdom into God’s kingdom). The gospel is the source of both, but the two are separate acts of the Spirit’s work in our lives. If you repent and have faith in Christ, trusting in His life, death, and resurrection for your salvation, you are immediately justified and sanctified, and you will be progressively sanctified as God works out salvation in you. Christ, the gospel, is the source of the Spirit’s work through faith alone.
This is a little less subtle than what followed in the same article, but the goal by the writer of said post is to sound biblical while trying to sell us Calvin’s progressive justification. The Devil is in the details. Like all cults, Calvinism distorts the Trinity by overemphasizing one member over the others. The Jehovah Witnesses overemphasize God the Father and destroy the role of Christ while others overemphasize the Spirit’s work to the exclusion of Christ and the Father. Calvinists overemphasize Christ and exclude the Father’s role in justification. Notice he states that Christ is THE gospel: “Christ, the gospel.” The definite article “the” is ever so subtle, and completely untrue. The Trinity is the gospel, not just Christ. Notice that he also states,
If you repent and have faith in Christ, trusting in His life, death, and resurrection for your salvation, you are immediately justified and sanctified, and you will be progressively sanctified as God works out salvation in you.
According to the post, we have to trust “in His life” as well as His death for our salvation. Did you catch that little subtle statement? That is the belief that Christ lived a perfect life on earth so that His obedience can be imputed to our sanctification while we are justified by His death. This comes from Calvin who believed that Christians are still under the jurisdiction of the law and it must be obeyed perfectly until we get to heaven where our final justification is verified. As long as we live by faith alone in sanctification, Christ’s perfect obedience is applied to our sanctification which prevents “making sanctification the ground of our justification,” a truism often uttered by John Piper.
This is where all of this living by the same gospel that saved us and preaching the gospel to ourselves comes into play. If we live by the same gospel (faith and repentance only) that saved us in sanctification to prevent our sanctification from being the ground of our justification, the perfect obedience of Christ to the law will continue to be imputed to our Christian walk. This promotes the idea that it is alright for Christians to remain under the law as long as Christ keeps it for us. This is why they say justification is “distinct” from sanctification but “never separate” because Calvin saw sanctification as a process that completes justification. That’s a VERY problematic gospel. Note:
Christ, the gospel, is the source of the Spirit’s work through faith alone.
The Spirit’s work? Is he talking about the Spirit’s work in justification or sanctification? Yes, because they believe they are both the same. And here is the kicker: if you don’t live your Christian life by faith alone (the same gospel that saved you) resulting in Christ’s obedience being imputed to your sanctification, you lose both justification and sanctification. So, you have to keep your salvation by living by faith alone in sanctification. Remember, you have to trust in Christ’s life, not just His death and resurrection. Note the following statement by New Calvinist Michael Horton:
Where we land on these issues is perhaps the most significant factor in how we approach our own faith and practice and communicate it to the world. If not only the unregenerate but the regenerate are always dependent at every moment on the free grace of God disclosed in the gospel, then nothing can raise those who are spiritually dead or continually give life to Christ’s flock but the Spirit working through the gospel. When this happens (not just once, but every time we encounter the gospel afresh), the Spirit progressively transforms us into Christ’s image. Start with Christ (that is, the gospel) and you get sanctification in the bargain; begin with Christ and move on to something else, and you lose both.
Much more could be said, but I think you get the picture. The author of the post furthers his position by referring his readers to seven elements pertaining to the same subject by a Rick Phillips. Phillips is much more subtle, but his first element reads as follows:
1. Justification and Sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith. Christ is himself the center of the gospel, and through faith we are saved in union with him (Acts 16:31; Eph. 1:3). Justification and Sanctification are distinct benefits flowing through union with Christ by faith alone.
Regardless of whatever else these guys say, this is the bottom line: if we remain in union with Christ by faith alone, justification and sanctification continue to flow by “faith alone.” What did James say about that? John Piper:
We are kept by the power of God through faith [emphasis mine].
It’s works salvation by living by faith alone in sanctification; i.e., the same antinomianism they claim to refute. Because we are supposedly still under the law, Christ must keep it for us so His perfect obedience to the law will cover us at the judgment day. But the only obedience of Christ that is part of the atonement is His obedience to the cross—we don’t need obedience to a law that we were justified apart from. We are now enslaved to the law and its righteousness, but it can’t judge our justification. It has no jurisdiction over our justification, period.
The Devil is in the details.
paul
The Parable of the Talents, Calvinism, and Basketball
“Is there a more apt description of American Christians? Ones who fully intend to only give back to God what He has initially granted. To do otherwise would be to ‘add to our salvation.’ We must live by some formula that posits the idea that Jesus does everything ‘through us.’ This is a very complicated formula given all the biblical imperatives we see in the Bible, but don’t worry, our Protestant nannies will grant us forgiveness if we obey them lest we add thinking to our list of works salvation or anything we do ‘in our own efforts.’”
Christians are to be unified by truth, and the Bible, which supplies its own interpretive methods, states the following principles among many:
1. Unity is truth-centered.
2. God’s word is truth.
3. Christians are unified to the point of agreement on the one mind in Christ.
4. The Holy Spirit sanctifies with truth only, not errant ideas.
Bad ideas about God’s truth are the cause of most woes in the church. It is to the point in America that unbelievers do not even have to persecute us anymore, but rather leave us to ourselves. This ministry is here because we target the idea that we think has led to the lion’s share of woes in the American church: Calvinism.
Calvinism is a bad idea because it has an unbiblical view of Man. Calvin, like his mentors, integrated Grecian philosophical presuppositions about man with the Bible and came up with total depravity—which also includes Christians as well. So, when we do something great, it’s not us doing it, it’s God doing it through us. And in the end, Christ will judge himself accordingly. When He states, “Well done faithful servant,” the verse must be interpreted in its “gospel context.” And remember, Calvin was a Protestant which doesn’t mean we are not Catholics. It means we are Catholics who protested priestly bad behavior. The core four of the Reformation, Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin agreed with Catholicism on its basic presuppositions concerning man which came from the same ancient pagan philosophy, but thought the doctrinal approach should be somewhat different and demanded moral despotism. The fruit doesn’t fall far from the tree; whether Arminian or Calvinistic, we believe Jesus will judge Himself in the end. And the fact that the apostle Paul insisted that servants in the church be honored must also be seen in its “gospel context.”
The fact that this philosophy is in the hands of youth via New Calvinism has turbocharged the problem. Hence, we read the following from the New York Times:
What may have been the most significant contest this season took place more than four months ago in Iowa between a small college and an even smaller one. It pitted Grinnell against Faith Baptist, and by the time it was over, Grinnell’s Jack Taylor had scored an N.C.A.A. record of 138 points.
. . . He poured in those 138 points, playing virtually the entire 40-minute game, while Grinnell was routing Faith Baptist, 179-104. . . .
Grinnell’s coaches, in other words, kept their star guard on the floor and shooting, and kept up their full-court defensive pressure, against an opposing team they were leading by 50, then 60, then 70 points. A college that prides itself on its values — rigorous academic standards, commitment to the common good, historical involvement in the abolition and Social Gospel movements — inflicted a defeat so absolute that it borders on public humiliation.
Sporting tradition has always made allowances so the vanquished can save face. Youth leagues have a “slaughter rule” to halt lopsided games. Football quarterbacks with a big lead hand off the ball rather than passing it. Basketball teams run down the clock instead of running up the score. Coaches pull the starters and send in the bench warmers. Very little mitigation of that sort happened last November at Grinnell.
And beyond the question of athletic ethics, the rout has taken on an overtly religious cast. Jack Taylor, an evangelical Christian, attributed his achievement to divine intervention.
In an interview with the Fellowship of Christian Athletes Web site, in which he alluded to a parable about talents in Matthew 25, Mr. Taylor said of God: “He definitely multiplied my talents that night. His fingerprints were all over that game.” . . .
If Grinnell has gone through much soul-searching, it doesn’t sound like it. From the athletic director and coaches to the ethicist in its philosophy department, the college community continues to point to the 179-104 game against a school less than one-fifth its size as a wholly admirable effort. . . .
“What strikes me in this story about Grinnell is that you have the unapologetic, brazen appeal to ‘Jesus’ right alongside the unrepentant quest to make a name for the school, the team and the player,” said Amy Laura Hall, an ethics professor at Duke Divinity School who is writing a book about muscular Christianity. “Would the story have even come across our radar if the coach had consciously pulled the player out, and kept the score more sportsmanlike, and missed the chance for a moment of fame, on principle? I wish that were the story to cover, this week after Easter, but it isn’t.”
It all starts with a flawed presupposition which leads to said interpretation of Matthew 25:14-30. God doesn’t entrust us with talents that are to be attended by our own efforts, but rather, God increases our talents at times of His choosing, like in a basketball game, and the only way we can know that He has done this is by what happens. No doubt, with everything going on in the world God wanted to glorify Himself via a college basketball game. Good American Christians everywhere give God the glory for doing our laundry, washing our car, and going to fetch the mail. Conveniently, pesky standards are not to be expected from anybody.
And ironically, God’s agitation with this attitude is the point of the very parable. The “wicked,” “lazy” servant feared what God’s response would be to his own efforts. “But Paul: that was just an excuse.” Right, that’s one of my points; such theology is often an excuse to be lazy and irresponsible in spiritual matters. It is a free ticket to not take responsibility for the sum and substance of our own life, the Life that, and I love this, “bears our own name” (John Immel). But don’t miss this: the master was agitated that the servant’s goal was to return to him only what he had received and nothing more.
Is there a more apt description of American Christians? Ones who fully intend to only give back to God what He has initially granted. To do otherwise would be to “add to our salvation.” We must live by some formula that posits the idea that Jesus does everything “through us.” This is a very complicated formula given all the biblical imperatives we see in the Bible, but don’t worry, our Protestant nannies will grant us forgiveness if we obey them lest we add thinking to our list of works salvation or anything we do “in our own efforts.”
The point of the parable is that certain attitudes come part and parcel with salvation versus those of the unregenerate. That’s the point. Here is how Christ concludes the parable:
And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
This parable has eternal ramifications. It is not teaching that we can earn our salvation, but rather teaches an attitude of service that comes with salvation and totally separate from its finished work. The wicked servant feared that his work would be judged by a standard that was impossible to obtain, and he feared losing any of the master’s original investment. But apparently, the other servants didn’t have this same fear. The clear difference between the servants is fear of a future judgment. The other servants eagerly anticipated the masters return to see how pleased he would be with their investments on His behalf; the latter servant feared a standard he thought he couldn’t live up to.
This is the grave danger of fusing justification with sanctification, and I see the application of this parable written all over such doctrines that confuse the finished work of salvation with the Christian life. Like Calvinism in particular. Biblical salvation changes the Christian’s relationship to the law—the law provokes him/her to serve rather than provoking them to sin. In unbiblical salvation, the law is an unkeepable standard that cannot be used to please the master. In this parable, the master had an unattainable standard that the wicked servant feared, so he played it safe and made sure He returned to the master what was only granted.
Christians should take a really hard look at any doctrine that fosters the same attitude of this wicked servant, or for that matter, anything that comes close to it. What does it say about the gospel that we really believe and the type of heart that comes with it?
paul
Fundamentals of Biblical Eschatology as Related to Covenants: The Potter’s House: 4/14/2013
Member: Home Fellowship Network
Click here for free message workbook.
Last week we looked at basic principles, building blocks of understanding to help us better understand the relationship of our justification to the covenants. Do you remember those basics?
1. No particular covenant has been abrogated or has passed away (HEB 8:13).
2. The covenants build on each other and have varied applications to future ages.
3. The unregenerate are spoken of as being alienated from more than one covenant (EPH 2:11,12).
4. Some elements of the covenants have ceased because they were only useful for a given time. This pertains to some of the old covenant laws. Ok, look, the American church is not a visible nation with a central hierarchy commissioned by God to overthrow evil nations and subdue land. So, parts of the old covenant are not going to be relevant for today. But yet, they still teach us many other things about God’s way of thinking.
5. No covenant has been fully consummated. The conclusion of the new covenant is yet future (JER 31:31ff., HEB 13:8).
6. The old covenant concept of reaping and sowing, or blessings and coursings is part of the new covenant. We are no longer under the law, but are motivated to obey by this conditional part of the old covenant (EPH 6:1-3 [3]).
7. Some parts of the covenants are conditional while others are unconditional. Election is unconditional and based on promise; reaping and sowing and blessings/coursings are conditional. There is THE PROMISE and THE SEED (unconditional and irrevocable) and “precious promises (2PET 1:1-4)” which are conditional.
8. The old covenant was a will that was executed when the testator died. Until then, sin was imprisoned under that covenant until faith came. Much more understanding on this point is needed (HEB 9:15-18).
Last week’s message can be reviewed online and is also available on DVD. Once again, we emphasize that the means of justification are unconditional, but much of sanctification is conditional and depends on our obedience. Clearly, the blessings of sanctification are in the doing (James 1:25). Boldness in sanctification comes from the knowledge that sanctification cannot affect God’s finished work of justification. James and Peter (JS 2:22,23, 2PET 1:5-11) both insist that we add works to our faith without fear that it jeopardizes the finished work of justification. I am convinced that weak sanctification is the result of not understanding the full counsel of God.
What is the gospel? What is the difference between justification and sanctification? What is the relationship between law and gospel? What are the covenants about and how do they fit into God’s plan? We have paused in chapter nine to look at some of these basics that you will undoubtedly see fall together as you study the Bible. We looked at law and gospel deeply, but only touched on some basics regarding covenants, and tonight before we move further in chapter nine of Romans I want to add more building blocks of understanding through biblical eschatology. This is the study of last things, prophesy if you will, and makes up about 25% of the Bible. And let me demonstrate the importance of this information in regard to our focus on justification in Romans. Turn with me to Luke 21:
25 “And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, 26 people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 27 And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.”
Notice Christ doesn’t say that our justification is drawing near. Redemption speaks of something already paid for that is being claimed, amen? Look, part and parcel with gospels that fuse justification and sanctification together resulting in weak sanctification is the idea that there is one judgment to determine who is justified and who isn’t in the end. That is one reason sanctification can be really weak—due to the introspection and fear that results from the two being fused—the idea that what we do in sanctification can affect our justification. The one resurrection idea brings with it the whole idea that our justification will be confirmed on the last day. That’s unsettling to say the least. This approach has always been common in Reformed theology; eg., the father of Reformed theology, Augustine[1]. John said that he wrote the book of 1John so that we can know for certain that we are saved (1JN 5:13). Why would we then stand in a judgment to confirm what we already know?
Covenants, the issue of justification, and eschatology all fit together perfectly and confirm an unshakable light for our path ahead and that is why we are taking this approach. Note the illustration below:
Seeing all of these elements fit together and therefore confirming what we believe is both powerful and important. If our defined difference between saved and unsaved are the following, “those under the law are enslaved to sin, cannot obey the law, are provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law while those under grace are justified apart from the law, able to obey the law, and enslaved by the law,” shouldn’t there be different judgments accordingly? And if judgment is always associated with resurrection, shouldn’t there be more than one resurrection?
Reformed theology is predicated on a single resurrection which goes hand in hand with the idea that our justification is confirmed in the end. This also fits with their view that the law is still the standard for justification and we must therefore live by the same faith alone that saved us. So, the one final judgment confirms that we lived our sanctified life by faith alone. Their sanctification by justification determines their covenant theology as well as their eschatology. Listen, it’s all gospel. Don’t fall for this essential/non-essential stuff—every verse in the Bible is a piece of the truth puzzle. That’s why we have Matthew 4:4 and 2Timothy 3:16,17. What we believe about any given truth must fit together overall. That’s when we can have great confidence that we stand in the truth.
Now, let’s have a look at our thesis for tonight:
Here we have Mount Sinai, or the old covenant, Christ’s death and resurrection, the last days, the tribulation period, the millennial kingdom (1000 year reign of Christ on David’s throne in Jerusalem), and the new heavens and new earth. As we have mentioned before, as Christians, we ultimately look for the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells (1PET 3:3). We are in the last days or what some people call the church age. The Bible never calls these days the church age, but rather the last days. The last days are marked by the first coming of Christ and will end with Christ’s imminent return (HEB 1:1,2, 1COR 18:11). This will begin the seven year tribulation period, and that period will end with the beginning of the millennial rein of Christ, and that will end with the new heavens and new earth. Now, let’s look at where the resurrections fit in:
The first resurrection is a resurrection of the righteous sometimes referred to as the rapture. It is imminent. At the end of the tribulation period, you have the separation of the sheep and the goats. The goats are judged and the sheep will populate the millennial kingdom. At that time, you have another resurrection of the righteous. No judgment is mentioned. At the end of the millennial kingdom the nations lay siege to Israel and are destroyed by God. At that time, all of the unregenerate from all ages are resurrected and judged by the law, and it doesn’t go well for them because perfect adherence is required to be just apart from Christ’s sacrifice. By the way, that’s a good gospel message: coming to Christ to avoid this coming judgment.
Furthermore, the old covenant is consummated by the tribulation period, and the new covenant is completed by the new heavens and new earth (HEB 8:8). God gets his way in regard to what He wanted at Mt. Sinai and the covenant is enforced by angels during the tribulation period accordingly. The present age is the grafting in of the Gentiles and that is a consummation of about half of the Abrahamic covenant which also is consummated or completed by the new heavens and new earth.
The saints do not stand in the last judgment where law is the standard. Only the non-elect are judged there. The saints cannot be judged by the law to determine their justification because they were justified apart from the law and their transgressions against the law are already pardoned. Besides, they died with Christ and are no longer under the covenant of the law to begin with. It’s inverted triple jeopardy:
1. We have the righteousness of God imputed to us, so no one can bring a charge against us (ROM 8:33,34).
2. All of our sins are imputed to Christ, so we can’t be charged (Ibid).
3. There is no law to judge us with (ROM 7:1-3 [4]).
But because justification is unconditional, and sanctification is conditional, there will be a judgment of rewards for the Christian. This is how covenants and eschatology fit together with the truth of justification versus sanctification.
Now, time to prove the theses Scripturally. Let’s start with the Abrahamic covenant. God promises to make Abraham a great nation, promises blessings for those who bless him, and curses for those who curse him. Abraham is promised specific geography, and told the nations of the earth will be blessed by him. We see here two different types of promises that are conditional and unconditional. If you will, justification and sanctification. The promise to make Abraham a great nation is unconditional. This covenant will be completed by God no matter what the Israelites do. Blessings and cursing are conditional depending on what we do. Those who bless Abraham will be blessed, those who curse him will be cursed. God also predicts the captivity in Egypt and when He will lead them out to possess the land (GEN 12:1-3, 15:13-16, 18-21, 17:5).
Now we come to Mt. Sinai and the fulfillment of the prophecy of Israel being led out of captivity as a great nation. God informs Moses that he wants to make Israel a holy nation and a kingdom of priests. This is partially fulfilled in the new covenant according to Peter. This is a continuation of the promise which is unconditional. Under the conditional promises God warns Israel not to break the weekly Sabbath or the Sabbath of resting the land every seven years. To do so was to not help the poor or give rest to the servants and workers in Israel. God also warns Israel not to make a covenant with other nations but to rather trust Him for protection and needs. God warns Israel that a violation of resting the land every seven years will be punished times seven (7×7). References: EX 19:4-6, 23:10, 32, 1PET 2:9, LEV 25:4,5, 26:14-35, JER 25:11,12, 29:10,11, 2CHRON 36:21. Now, let’s go to the book of Daniel and chapter nine:
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans— 2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.
20 While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my plea before the Lord my God for the holy hill of my God, 21 while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the first, came to me in swift flight at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 He made me understand, speaking with me and saying, “O Daniel, I have now come out to give you insight and understanding. 23 At the beginning of your pleas for mercy a word went out, and I have come to tell it to you, for you are greatly loved. Therefore consider the word and understand the vision.
24 “Seventy weeks are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. 27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”
Let me sum this up thus far. Israel violated the national sign of their covenant with God: the Sabbath years, or weeks of years (EX 31:12-14). That was letting the land rest every seven years in order that the poor could glean from the fields (EX 23:10,11). Gabriel informs Daniel that there was seventy weeks to complete the transgression, or 490 years. Gabriel states that there are two time periods totaling 69 weeks that end with the destruction of Jerusalem, or 483 years. Then he states the last seven years are marked by Israel making a covenant with the antichrist. In the middle of that week, the antichrist stops the sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem and declares himself God. Therefore, the last days (HEB 1:1,2 1COR 10:11) are an undisclosed number of years that end with Christ’s return. The 490 years is known as the “times of the Gentiles and ends with the completion of the tribulation period:
Luke 21:20 – “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, 22 for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. 23 Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Christ was speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled which is at the end of the tribulation period. This time period spans four world empires as described via several visions recorded in the book of Daniel. During the times of the Gentiles, believing Gentiles are grafted into the nation of Israel as a partial fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. Christ said that no man knows when He will come for the church which would exclude the tribulation period because His return in that time period has a specific beginning, middle point, and ending which begin with Israel’s covenant with the antichrist. Isaiah calls this a covenant with hell:
28:15 – Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death, and with Sheol we have an agreement, when the overwhelming whip passes through it will not come to us, for we have made lies our refuge, and in falsehood we have taken shelter”; 16 therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am the one who has laid as a foundation in Zion, a stone, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone, of a sure foundation: ‘Whoever believes will not be in haste.’ 17 And I will make justice the line, and righteousness the plumb line; and hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, and waters will overwhelm the shelter.” 18 Then your covenant with death will be annulled,
The imminent return of Christ is a resurrection of the just including those who are still alive:
1Corinthians 15:50 – I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1 Thessalonians 4:13 – But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
Another obvious resurrection of the just is at the end of the tribulation period:
Revelation 20:1 – Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. 2 And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, 3 and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.
4 Then I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Also I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Then we have the judgment after the end of the millennial kingdom:
Revelation 20:11 – Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Please note: because of the Reformed view of justification, one resurrection and one judgment is VERY helpful to their thesis. More than one resurrection can lead to the belief that Christians will not stand in a judgment to determine their just standing, but rather a judgment for rewards because their just standing is already determined. See those books in the second resurrection? We can’t be judged by them because the righteousness imputed to us was apart from those books. I have discussed this personally with many Reformed folks—they definitely hold to a single resurrection and judgment. Why? Because it fits their view of justification; that’s why. Justification is not confirmed positively till the final judgment. To the contrary, we don’t stand in the last judgment, but rather a judgment for rewards (1COR 3:10-15, 2COR 5:10, LK 14:12-14). I might add that if our justification is not sealed, we need them to guide us safely to a right standing in the judgment. Listen, church historian and dear friend John Immel has it right: it’s all abuot CONTROL. As I recently wrote, there are only two kinds of religions in the world: cult or word; caste or truth. You are in one kind of church or another: one where the leaders want to lead you, or one where they want to control you.
Now, in regard to the Davidic covenant in 2Samuel 7, I only want to mention the principle of THE PROMISE and PROMISES. Please note:
14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever.’” 17 In accordance with all these words, and in accordance with all this vision, Nathan spoke to David.
We see that in the covenants, there is the principle of God disciplining us as His children versus judgment and condemnation. Also note: 1COR 11:31, 32, HEB 12:3-17 (PROV 3:11,12) 1COR 5:4,5.
Let’s wrap up with a look at the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:
31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” 35 Thus says the Lord, who gives the sun for light by day and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name: 36 “If this fixed order departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever.” 37 Thus says the Lord: “If the heavens above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth below can be explored, then I will cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done, declares the Lord.” 38 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when the city shall be rebuilt for the Lord from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate. 39 And the measuring line shall go out farther, straight to the hill Gareb, and shall then turn to Goah. 40 The whole valley of the dead bodies and the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be sacred to the Lord. It shall not be plucked up or overthrown anymore forever.”
Obviously, this covenant is not completed yet. All of these covenants work together towards the final goal that we look for: the new heavens and new earth where righteousness dwells. And all other biblical elements fit into this goal and work in concert with it including eschatology, covenants, soteriology, and eschatology must all agree.
ENDNOTES:
1. “In this book, then, I shall speak, as God permits, not of those first judgments, nor of these intervening judgments of God, but of the last judgment, when Christ is to come from heaven to judge the quick and the dead. For that day is properly called the Day of Judgment, because in it there shall be no room left for the ignorant questioning why this wicked person is happy and that righteous man unhappy. In that day true and full happiness shall be the lot of none but the good, while deserved and supreme misery shall be the portion of the wicked, and of them only….I shall now cite from the Gospel according to Matthew the passage which speaks of the separation of the good from the wicked by the most efficacious and final judgment of Christ” (Augustine: City of God).
“Augustine taught that the eternal fate of the soul is determined at death” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo).
Dogma of particular judgment
The Catholic doctrine of the particular judgment is this: that immediately after death the eternal destiny of each separated soul is decided by the just judgment of God. Although there has been no formal definition on this point, the dogma is clearly implied in the Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439), which declares that souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace, but in need of purification are cleansed in Purgatory, whereas souls that are perfectly pure are at once admitted to the beatific vision of the Godhead (ipsum Deum unum et trinum) and those who depart in actual mortal sin, or merely with original sin, are at once consigned to eternal punishment, the quality of which corresponds to their sin (paenis tamen disparibus). The doctrine is also in the profession of faith of Michael Palaeologus in 1274, in the Bull “Benedictus Deus” of Benedict XII, in 1336, and in the professions of faith of Gregory XIII and Benedict XIV (Catholic Encyclopedia).
2. If you note Exodus 32:32-35 it is interesting that Moses indicates that people are originally written in a book and at some point blotted out.
3. There are 275 direct citations from the Old Testament used to make points by the New Testament writers. That strongly indicates a process of all the covenants continuing to have a role until the very end.
4. Some say we will stand in a final judgment, but God will only see Christ’s perfect obedience because we lived by faith alone in sanctification. What law? We died to the law with Christ. Who keeps it is irrelevant, there is no law to keep.
5. Matthew McGee: http://www.matthewmcgee.org/millen.html
After the rapture of the church, after the seven year tribulation, and after the second coming, Jesus Christ will reign in His kingdom. What will the kingdom be like? Here we will examine some of the basic characteristics of the kingdom.
The Duration of the Kingdom
One of the most concise and informative passages on the kingdom occurs in Revelation. After the description of the Lord’s second coming in chapter 19, but before the great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11-15 and the eternal kingdom in chapters 21 and 22, we have this description of the kingdom.
Revelation 20:1-10 says, “And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
This passage makes several things very clear. Satan will be bound and unable to influence mankind. The first resurrection, the resurrection of the Old Testament saints (Daniel 12:2-3 and 12:13) and tribulation saints, will occur at the beginning of the kingdom. This resurrection is not to be confused with the resurrection of the Christians at the rapture, which will occur seven years earlier, prior to the tribulation. The rapture was a mystery first revealed to Apostle Paul and is not the subject of either Old Testament prophecy or prophecies given in Christ’s earthly ministry.
The duration of this kingdom will be one millennium. This passage makes this very clear by telling us not just once but six times that it will last one thousand years. Satan will be released for a brief period after the one thousand years. This passage may bring questions to the minds of many readers, but hopefully, the remainder of this paper will adequately address most of them. For a description of the eternal kingdom which will follow this one thousand year kingdom, one may read Revelation chapters 21 and 22.
Animals Become Peaceful
Now regarding the character of the kingdom, the book of Isaiah is rich with kingdom prophecies. In Isaiah 11:6-9 it is revealed that “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
First of all, we see that animals that are presently carnivorous, will begin to eat vegetation only, so that the animals will not fear one another or harm people. Many have taken this passage and tried to spiritualize (allegorically interpret) the truth away from it, saying it is not literal. However, not only will all animals literally be herbivores in the future, but all animals once were herbivores, since neither man nor beast ate animal flesh prior to the great flood.
Genesis 1:29-30 “And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.”
The Hebrew word “oklah” translated “meat” by the King James Version of the Bible (KJV) simply means food or that which is devoured. Notice that the beasts are neither given for Adam’s food, nor for one another’s food. Both Adam and the beasts are given the herbs and fruits to eat. So man and beast were all vegetarian. However, God changed things after the great flood
In Genesis 9:2-3 God says to Noah, “And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”
So the animals began to fear man, because man was given permission to eat the animals. This is also when many animals became carnivorous. Further scriptural evidence of animals becoming peaceful in the kingdom will be provided in the next section.
The world we live in today is filled with people who deny the deity of Jesus Christ, including many who even deny the existence of God. But that will not be the case in the kingdom. Isaiah 11:9, quoted above, states that, “… the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.”
Life Spans Increased
Here is another passage which is loaded with information. Isaiah 65:20-25 says, “There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet speaking, I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.”
There are many key statements in this passage. We see a great increase in life spans. Like the previously mentioned Isaiah 11 passage which says that “… the leopard shall lie down with the kid …”, many have taken what this passage says about the long life spans and tried to spiritualize (allegorically interpret) the truth away from it, saying it is not literal. However, not only will life spans literally be longer, but this too was this way before the great flood.
In the genealogy from Adam to Noah given in Genesis 5 and 9:29, there are extremely long life spans. When we exclude Enoch who was taken by God (Genesis 5:24) at the age of 365 years and Lamech who died at the age of 777 years, we find that all of the other eight lived between 895 and 969 years. After the great flood, there was a rapid drop in life span to a little over 400 years. Around the time of the tower of Babel, life spans dropped to a little over 200 years. Then they began to slowly decrease to more modern life spans over a period of hundreds of years.
Of course many will say that the idea of humans having lived for more than 900 years is ridiculous. However, the following factors produced great changes in man’s environment and/or lifestyle. Without speculating on the positive or negative effects these factors may have had on life span, some of them are: (1) Prior to the flood it did not rain on the earth, rather the earth was watered by mist that came up from the ground (Genesis 2:5-6). (2) As previously mentioned, it was after the great flood that man began to eat meat for the first time (Genesis 9:3). (3) The removal of the vast layer of waters above the firmament (Genesis 1:7 and 7:11) may have effected the sun’s rays, the earth’s magnetic field, or the air pressure. (4) After the flood, the human race was replenished through only eight people (Genesis 6:18) which required the marriage of some near relatives. These factors and others not contemplated here may have had a tremendous effect on human life. We are not capable of determining what all of the effects might be, except to say that the ramifications would be great. So we should take God at his Word (something we should do anyway) when He tells us about the life spans of those who lived before the flood and those who will live in the coming kingdom.
In the Isaiah 65:20-25 passage we also see normal, everyday life taking place. Often people may incorrectly equate the kingdom with some popular idea of heaven. However, this prophecy does not describe people sitting on clouds strumming harps. Instead we see normal activities like building houses, living in them, planting vineyards, eating fruit, bearing children, and sometimes even death.
This passage also provides further evidence of carnivorous animals becoming herbivores, which we have already discussed.
One common misunderstanding is to think that only those who are resurrected or changed into immortal bodies will enter the kingdom. This would leave no one in the kingdom who could possibly sin or die. But Matthew 25:31-46 describes Jesus Christ dividing the sheep from the goats at the end of the great tribulation. This is the judgment of the Gentile nations (v. 32). All of the people gathered on the Lord’s right hand are survivors of the great tribulation and will pass into the kingdom in their mortal bodies. They will bear children who are mortal as well. The same is true for the many Israelites who will survive the great tribulation, and will bear children in the kingdom. Ezekiel 37:25-26 says, “And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.” All of these people and their descendants will be capable of both sin and death in the millennial kingdom, even though Satan will be in chains and unable to influence them.
An End to Wars
There will be no war during this one thousand years, until Satan is released (Revelation 20:7-9) for a short period at the end. In reference to Jesus Christ, Micah 4:3 says, “And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Isaiah 2:4 is very similar passage. Not only will there no longer be any war, but the weapons will be dismantled and battle strategies will no longer be taught.
Israel will be at peace and dwell safely in the kingdom. “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jeremiah 23:5-6). This is certainly in contrast to the present with Israel surrounded by her enemies on all sides.
Jesus Christ’s Judgment and the Restored Judges
The Micah and Jeremiah verses above also refer to Jesus Christ judging the nations of the earth. He will do so in all wisdom and perfect justice, with a rod of iron. “And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Revelation 19:15). He will reign as a literal king on a throne, dwelling in Jerusalem. He will also restore the judges to Israel. “And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning: afterward thou shalt be called, The city of righteousness, the faithful city” (Isaiah 1:26). Who will the judges of the twelve tribes of Israel be? Jesus Christ told His disciples, “… Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Matthew 19:28).
Israel will be a Kingdom of Priests
“Thus saith the LORD of hosts; It shall yet come to pass, that there shall come people, and the inhabitants of many cities: And the inhabitants of one city shall go to another, saying, Let us go speedily to pray before the LORD, and to seek the LORD of hosts: I will go also. Yea, many people and strong nations shall come to seek the LORD of hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the LORD. Thus saith the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you: for we have heard that God is with you” (Zechariah 8:20-23).
“Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel” (Exodus 19:5-6).
The Feast of Tabernacles
One very interesting prophecy occurring in Zechariah 14:16-19 concerns the Gentile nations keeping the feast of tabernacles in the millennial kingdom. “And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain. And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles. This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.”
Here we see that in the kingdom the Gentiles must keep the feast of tabernacles which was formerly a feast just for Israel. To do so, they must travel to Jerusalem once each year in the autumn to “worship the King”, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ will reign on His throne in Jerusalem like Ezekiel 43:7 says, “And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more defile …”.
Some may be unfamiliar with this feast, so we will review the feast of tabernacles in Leviticus 23:33-44, which is also known as the feast of booths. “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD. On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein. Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD: it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein. These are the feasts of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, a burnt offering, and a meat offering, a sacrifice, and drink offerings, every thing upon his day: Beside the sabbaths of the LORD, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the LORD. Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the LORD seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the LORD your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the LORD seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month. Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” It should be noted that Israel’s calendar begins in the spring, so the seventh month is not July, but occurs later, in the autumn.
In addition to the annual feast, Deuteronomy 31:10-13 explains that the law was to be read to all of Israel once every seven years, at the feast of tabernacles. “And Moses commanded them, saying, At the end of every seven years, in the solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, When all Israel is come to appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their hearing. Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law: And that their children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.”
It may be that the feast of tabernacles takes on a slightly different meaning in the kingdom since Israel will no longer celebrate their rescue from Egypt, but rather, from all the nations to which they have been scattered. Jeremiah 16:14-15 says, “Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be said, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; But, The LORD liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.”
The Temple and the Law
The temple of the millennial kingdom is described in detail in Ezekiel chapters 40-44. Although we will not go into the details here, we will mention a few key points. The glory of the Lord will fill the temple (Ezekiel 43:5). The law given by God through Moses will still be kept including the sacrifices (Ezekiel 43:19-27). The Levites will still minister in the temple (Ezekiel 44:9-11). The laws and statutes delivered by Moses will be obeyed (Ezekiel 44:24). Ezekiel 44:25 and 31 show further evidence that some death of people and animals can and will occur in the kingdom. The sabbaths and feasts of the Israel will still be kept including the passover, the feast of unleavened bread (Ezekiel 45:21), and the feast of tabernacles (Ezekiel 45:25). It will be well known by all that Jesus Christ gave his life as the perfect sacrifice for all mankind. None-the-less, the prophecy reveals that the sacrifices will still be kept and the law of Moses strictly followed.
Geographical Changes in Israel
There will also be tremendous geographical changes in Israel. When Jesus Christ returns to the mount of Olives, just east of Jerusalem, an earthquake will split the mountain in two. “And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south. And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah: and the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee” (Zechariah 14:4-5).
In addition, the fountain of living water described in Zechariah and Ezekiel will have a geographical impact. “In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness” (Zechariah 13:1). Then Zechariah 14:8 shows us where the waters will flow, “And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former (eastern) sea, and half of them toward the hinder (western) sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.” The living waters will flow out of Jerusalem in two directions, to the west to the great sea (western or Mediterranean Sea) and to the east to the Dead Sea (eastern or Salt Sea). Also see Ezekiel 47:1-7.
What effect will this have on the Dead Sea? The Dead Sea is about 10 miles wide and 50 miles long running north and south on along the eastern side of Judea. Its northern end is about as far north as Jerusalem. It has no outlet and is seven times more salty than the oceans. No fish live in the Dead Sea, and ocean fish placed in its waters soon die. Only certain types of microbes live in it. Yet In Ezekiel 47:8-11 we are told the waters of the Dead Sea will be healed. “Then said he unto me, These waters issue out toward the east country, and go down into the desert, and go into the sea: which being brought forth into the sea, the waters shall be healed. And it shall come to pass, that every thing that liveth, which moveth, whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live: and there shall be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters shall come thither: for they shall be healed; and every thing shall live whither the river cometh. And it shall come to pass, that the fishers shall stand upon it from Engedi even unto Eneglaim; they shall be a place to spread forth nets; their fish shall be according to their kinds, as the fish of the great sea, exceeding many. But the miry places thereof and the marishes thereof (swamps and marshes) shall not be healed; they shall be given to salt.” Engedi, mentioned above, is on the western coast of the Dead Sea about 25 miles southeast of Jerusalem. A peninsula juts out into the sea from the east. South of this peninsula the Dead Sea is shallow, less than 20 feet deep in most places. But the majority of the sea is north of the peninsula, where the central and northern part of the sea is more than one thousand feet deep. Perhaps verse 11 refers to the shallow southern end, furthest from Jerusalem, that will remain too salty for aquatic life.
This passage is not in conflict with the passage that refers to there being no sea. That verse (Revelation 21:1) refers to the new heaven and new earth and occurs after the one thousand year kingdom that is being described here.
As the many following Isaiah verses show, the land of Israel will become much more fertile. The deserts will become fertile fields and the fields will become as forests.
“Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest” (Isaiah 32:15).
“Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?” (Isaiah 29:17).
“For the LORD shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody” (Isaiah 51:3).
“… the dessert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose” (Isaiah 35:1).
The nation of Israel will also be given far more land than they presently possess. A general description is found Genesis. “In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates …” (Genesis 15:18). God confirmed this promise to Abraham’s son, Isaac, in Genesis 26:3 and later to Isaac’s son, Jacob, in Genesis 35:12. A detailed description of how this land will be divided by the tribes of Israel is found in Ezekiel chapter 48.
These are just some of the changes to Israel’s geography and ownership that God’s Word says will take place when the kingdom comes. Further study is encouraged of passages such as Zechariah 14:10 which reveal other geographical changes.
Warning Against Allegorical Interpretation
These are only a few of the many prophecies about the kingdom in which Jesus Christ will reign on the earth from Jerusalem. The prophecies that God has provided are quite vast and detailed. There are those who would claim that the kingdom prophecies are only to be interpreted allegorically. That is, they attempt to say that all of these events are figurative and try to sweep their literal fulfillment under the rug. Typically, these are those which teach the false doctrine that the church has forever taken Israel’s place. Therefore, they despise the prophecies about the future prominence of the nation of Israel. While claiming to be more spiritual, they label as carnal, those who believe the literal meaning of the kingdom prophecies. But what could be more spiritual than faith, taking God at His Word? What could be more carnal than assuming that God did not mean what He said, and then trying to nullify His Word with the doctrine of men? As shown above, they truly have a mountain of truth to try to conceal. The evidence presented here is but a small sample of the teaching God’s Word has to offer on the kingdom.
A Replacement for the New Calvinist “Two Ways” Gospel Presentation
I have been asked what I think of the New Calvinist “Two Ways to Live” gospel presentation. The following is my answer:
“Two ways: 1. self-rule 2. ‘Relying on the death and resurrection’ in sanctification towards a ONE final judgment to determine if you successfully lived by faith alone in sanctification. Of course, living by faith alone in a sanctification heavily endowed with commands is very tricky business. But don’t worry; elder rule versus ‘self-rule’ will lead us safely home.
That’s what that supposed gospel presentation is about.”
The following is my replacement:
PDF file: Two Ways Copy
Slide show:
An Answer to “John Doe” About the New Calvinist “33 Series”
Brother Doe,
Greetings. The “33 series .com” is just another version of gospel contemplationism for men. The New Calvinism movement has completely emasculated Christian men spiritually. You are not [making a mountain out of a molehill], this false doctrine will eventually lay waste to the American church. The present movement is a resurrection from its prior death. TANC publishing is presently researching the resurgences since Calvin’s Geneva theocracy. Lord willing, the history will be documented in volume two of “The Truth About New Calvinism.”
God’s people eventually catch on to the fact that this doctrine is based on perpetual re-salvation through sanctification by faith alone and the continued implementation of the same repentance that saved us. Staying at the foot of the cross eventually leads to children in adult bodies devouring each other. The tyranny of this movement can only control the chaos for so long. I would say the movement is presently at its peak and will start declining to the social death that is always its end.
Protestantism came from this movement that is long on gospel contemplationism and short on intelligent obedience leading to a house built on a rock, so when these movements die, the weak sanctification that emerges lays the groundwork for the next resurgence. Our goal is to equip Christians with the knowledge that has been kept from them by Protestant academia; ie, an understanding of biblical covenants, law and gospel, justification and sanctification, and how the full counsel of God fits together and operates in real life. We all possess the illuminating Holy Spirit and are in the information age to boot; it is time for real Christian men to be the Bereans that they are called to be. This movement has produced a generation of pathetic, mindless, cowardly husbands. Susan and I counsel women who might as well be part of a Reformed elders harem. It is amazing how a murdering mystic despot that lived so many years ago can destroy so many marriages in our day.
What would Paul Dohse do? Let the dead bury their dead. In our day, if you can see the problem, you are called to do something about it. Don’t confront the situation, it won’t go anywhere. Christians in our day do not have the theological wherewithal nor the necessary love for the truth to deal with this problem. You will stand alone, and depending on what stage of sectarian takeover the church is in, you may be brought up on church disciple. It’s not worth it; come out from among them. You need to equip yourself and start a home fellowship. That’s what Susan and I have done and have learned more about God in the past six months than our combined 80 years as Christians. We stand ready to support and network with any who take this direction.
This movement needs to do more than just die this time around, it needs to be replaced. That’s our mission, and your prayers would be appreciated.
Your brother,
Paul M. Dohse
An Open Letter to John MacArthur Jr. Concerning Progressive Justification
Mailed 4/13/2013 by certified letter:
Mr. MacArthur,
I am writing to you openly concerning the fact that you now preach Calvin’s false gospel of progressive justification. As an avid follower of your teachings over the years, and one greatly helped by them in the past, I now implore you to repent of preaching another gospel. I am provoked to write this letter after listening to your general session address at this year’s Shepherds’ Conference.
Sadly, for the most part, the message was a shameless pandering to the Calvinist audience with the same worn-out Neo-Calvinist protocol; e.g., us against evangelicalism, redefinition of the plain sense of Scripture to undermine the interpretive abilities of the laity, etc., etc. Per the usual in these settings, you also insinuated that this movement has a “fresh” take on evangelism and understanding the Scriptures in a “deeper” way.
On the one hand, you expounded on the importance of evangelism and the idea that it is the church’s primary purpose for being here, and then on the other hand propagated the idea via John 3:3 that God is going to do what He is going to do regardless of anything we do. And you also proffered the idea that it is wrong to call unbelievers to do anything in our gospel presentation other than believe, and that was only forthcoming at the very end and stated once.
Primarily presented was the idea that we proclaim the new birth and inform individuals that there is nothing they can do to obtain it. They are simply to “ask” and hope God had decided to save them before creation. In your third party presentation of the question, what can we tell them to do? you are clear: ask only and hope for the best. Shockingly, you also suggested that Reformed elders can “ask” for others as mediators (your personal experience shared about the young man suffering with aids).
Other than the fact that you have harshly criticized Rick Warren for not including repentance in his gospel messages and your hypocrisy is therefore staggering, this idea contradicts a mass of other biblical texts. One of many would be Paul’s description of his ministry that implored people to be reconciled to God. In other instances Paul simply called for repentance. The Calvinist you proudly proclaimed yourself to be in the same message has transformed your prior teachings into confusing messages that raise more questions than are answered.
But these are all symptoms of the basic problem: your false gospel. In one article written by you, the following was stated:
“If sanctification is included in justification, then justification is a process, not an event. That makes justification progressive, not complete” (emphasis added).
But yet the fourteenth chapter of Calvin’s Institutes is entitled: “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive?” So, what’s our first clue? Indicative of your Calvinist theology that a child could even dismiss is the simple fact that Paul categorized the lost and the saved in Romans as “under the law” versus “under grace.” Calvin taught that Christians are still under the law. This is plain from his writings in ICR 3.14.9-11 in which he states that Christians cannot please God in sanctification because their works are judged by the law as a continued standard for justification. Calvin makes it clear that no “believer” has ever earned merit with God because their works are judged by the law (first sentence of 3.14.11). In 3.14.10, he even cites James 2:10, a verse that concerns those under the law, to make his case.
As I think you would know, Paul makes it clear in Romans that being under the law is synonymous with being enslaved to sin, unable to keep the law, and destined to a future judgment by law. Under grace is synonymous with having a mind enslaved to the law and free to do righteous acts, and declared righteous apart from the law. But in fact, Calvin’s total depravity also applies to the saints and deems them still enslaved to sin. You often cite Calvin’s concept of total depravity, but when are you going to start being honest and also mention you believe, as Calvin, that it applies to Christians as well?
Calvin stated in no uncertain terms in 3.14.11 that Christ’s “reconciliation with God” is “perpetual” and “not promulgated” in the beginning only. This is because the same forgiveness that saved us needs to be continually applied to our lives according to Calvin:
“For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us [which is not the point because we are under grace and not law], so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins” (3.14.10).
Hence, there is not one complete “washing,” but according to Calvin, a perpetual washing is needed (see JN 13 and 1COR 6:11).
This doctrine always dies a social death and needs to be resurrected again after carnage from the previous “Resurgence” is forgotten. The present movement was resurrected by Robert Brinsmead in 1970. Coming forth from its sectarian womb, it has divided countless families and churches. The seminary you are president of pumps out hundreds of sectarian Calvinists on a yearly basis. One of your graduates split a church two blocks from where we live.
This is your shameful legacy unless you repent.
Paul M. Dohse
American Christians Are All Calvinists
“Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church.”
There is no new thing under the sun. When Christ came and began His ministry with the proclamation of the kingdom gospel, Israel was steeped in the traditions of men. And Christ didn’t call it “legalism,” He called it antinomianism. Whether Arminian or Calvinist, both came from that same stock. They claim to be different, but both celebrate their parents as heroes of the faith: the Pilgrims. The unregenerate even get in on the act during the holiday season of Thanks Giving and Christmas.
But the Pilgrims were Puritans. And the Puritans were rabid Calvinists. They brought with them the first Bible to ever see American soil: the Geneva Bible which included Calvin’s play by play commentary. They came to start a theocracy modeled after Calvin’s Geneva, and succeeded. And what followed was the same heartless brutality they brought with them from Europe. The Pilgrims were merciless tyrants and were put out of business because they hung too many Quakers for disagreeing with them. Like Calvin and Luther, they were endowed with superstition and mysticism clothed in European orthodoxy.
The reverence of Puritans as spiritual giants and pioneers is pure myth. They were communistic, and lacked the rugged individualism that founded this nation. Regardless of the vast, unmolested resources they found when they arrived here, Indians had to teach them how to survive. The Puritans were not innovators, and invented little to overcome the environment they found themselves in. Their presuppositions concerning man and mystical approach to life did not serve them well. These same presuppositions run deep and wide in the American church.
But what about Calvinism versus Arminianism and the election issue? There is no disagreement there either. Calvin didn’t believe in election. The assumed absurdity of the statement testifies to the traditions of men that saturate the American church. Calvin believed that we are sanctified the same way we were saved, by faith and repentance alone. He also believed that this saving duo of faith and repentance were necessarily perpetual, and could only be received in the formal church institution. Luther believed this as well. You keep your salvation by being faithful to the local church, or “new covenant.” One must remain “faithful to the covenant” by seeking perpetual reconciliation in the church. So-called election is being elected to be in the covenant, but then you have to keep yourself in the covenant. You run the “race of faith” by “faith alone” in order to stay justified in sanctification.
God then sorts out who was able to do that at a single, last judgment. Hence, Augustine, a forefather of the Reformation, believed that eternal life wasn’t determined until the final judgment. I document these assertions in “False Reformation” and the mini-booklet “New Calvinism for Dummies” (tancpublishing.com). However, this may be helpful as well: http://paulspassingthoughts.com/2012/10/31/mutable-justification-not-shocking-just-reformed/
The fact that Reformed theology rejects election can also be seen in Supersessionism. This is the belief that though the nation of Israel was elected, they lost their election because they didn’t stay faithful to the covenant. So, once elected doesn’t necessarily mean always elected. Though Revelation makes it clear that God will dwell with man ON EARTH for eternity, the American emphasis is eternity in heaven. Why? Because God tabernacling with man on earth =’s Israel. That’s why. The very purpose of election cannot be denied as stated by Paul in Romans 9—anything at all that we do is separated from justification. Therefore, Calvinists deny the purpose of election.
Arminians are no different because they come from the same stock. They also deny election, and seek comfort in church membership. I can’t even tell you how many Southern Baptists that I have visited who trust in their church membership for salvation. To suggest they be removed from the church roles because they have not attended in several years is tantamount to removing them from the book of life. This is a common mentality in Baptist churches and I have witnessed it first hand on many occasions. Also throw in the obvious overemphasis on salvation in Arminian Baptist churches because like their Calvinist counterparts, the same gospel that saved you also sanctifies you.
Because of the traditions of men, we are all Calvinists. And we are so steeped in tradition that we don’t even know it. There is no new thing under the sun.
paul
“God Hates the Sin But Loves the Sinner” And We know This How Exactly?
“One of the things we learn from the pure milk that is not mixed with orthodoxy is that lying about the truth is not love.”
There has been a lot going on in the societal realm lately and I haven’t had time to write about it, but the topic of this post pretty well covers it. Idol worship is always formal. Even when parents of ancient paganism sacrificed their children to the Gods, it was according to orthodoxy. The average Joe never devises his own gods and the prescribed worship—he’s not qualified, it is always devised by the religious experts ruling the day. Hence, parents didn’t just sacrifice their children by some flippant self-devised method; it was done according to proper worship.
Historically, there are only two religions; Cult and Word. Cult is the idea that enlightened human mediators rule the unenlightened masses on behalf of God. The truth that they supposedly get directly from God in order to guide the masses is called “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxy has its own metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. The unenlightened masses sometimes have a choice as to what cult they may choose. Do I believe my infant should be boiled alive in oil to appease the gods, or stabbed through the heart by the High Priest? In contrast, a government will sometimes dictate the cult through the combination of force and faith.
In ancient times, God walked past all of the cults and spoke to his chosen subjects face to face. There were two authorities; one of your own choosing (if you had a choice), and God. Those who chose God are documented in the Bible, and the same also describes the personal interaction that God had with them. In ancient times, cults got a little out of control. Orthodoxy resulted in God being sorry that He created man, so He paid Noah a visit and told Him to build a boat. Not long after the flood waters went away, man once again gravitated to orthodoxy at the Tower of Babble.
Over time, and for His own reasons, God has changed His methods for communicating with His servants. But He has always promised that those seeking His truth would find it. This doesn’t include those seeking orthodoxy of their own desire. Neither does it include those who seek freedom from faith and force so they can choose orthodoxy suited to their own lusts. Those who flee worship with boiling oil for worship with the knife are not heroes. Not in God’s eyes anyway—God is in the truth business.
Orthodoxy and truth. Those are our choices. God’s eyes go to and fro throughout the earth constantly seeking those who worship Him according to spirit and what? TRUTH (JN 4:24). The one who Christ called “the rock” implores us to grow spiritually by feeding on the PURE milk of the what? WORD (1Peter 2:2). Pure milk is available, and God has made it available to all. He uses leaders, but their authority is bound up in His word as judged by the congregation of the saints. The saints follow leaders as they follow Christ.
One of the things we learn from the pure milk that is not mixed with orthodoxy is that lying about the truth is not love. Truisms and spiritual sound bites are the orthodoxy of the American church. They are cult orthodoxy. American pastors invent them to bring God’s truth down to a level where unenlightened congregants can understand it. The inability of the congregant is assumed and feared if not assumed. Even congregants that know something are believed to be equipped with enough knowledge to be dangerous like a loaded gun in the hands of a child. Therefore, orthodoxy proffers the virtue of “childlike faith” as opposed to hard thinking with the brains that God apparently gave the masses accidently.
“We are all just sinners saved by grace.” “God hates the sin, but loves the sinner.” And also popular contemporary “Christian” music: “Jesus, Friend of Sinners.” Is Jesus a friend of sinners? Jesus stated that His FRIENDS pattern their lives according to righteousness, not sin. A “sinner” patterns their life after the orthodoxy of choice, and that can be hedonism as well as any other religion. Who is Mark Hall to redefine who Christ says His friends are?
Only the truth sets us free. If you are a pastor who doesn’t challenge American orthodoxy in the form of spiritual sound bites, you are not a pastor; you are just another everyday cultist bent on having a manageable dumbed-down congregation. You comfort with instruction from the manual published by the Hemlock Society and your “love” is woefully misguided.
paul
Fundamentals of American Christianity, Calvinism, Covenants, and Election: The Potter’s House: 4/7/2013
Chart illustration for discussion at 00:45:31
If you are much like me as an average American Christian, you are pretty foggy on God’s overall plan for mankind involving Old Testament and New Testament tenets. Perhaps due to laziness, we accept broad generalizations concerning the differences between the testaments. For example, “Old Testament saints were saved by keeping the law—we are saved by grace,” “God gave the law to show us we can’t keep it—to drive us to resting in Christ alone,” etc.
There is no doubt that it takes diligent study to understand redemptive covenants, election, and sanctification paradigms. The complexities of these issues have not been taught in the American church. Why? Our American Christian heritage comes from the Puritans who arrived on our Eastern shores from Europe. They were Calvinistic, and part and parcel with European Calvinism comes theocracy and orthodoxy. Like ducks searching for bodies of water, European Calvinism will eventually head in this direction. There are no exceptions, and it is only a matter of time. If Calvinism is ultimately deprived of theocracy and orthodoxy, particularity the Puritan breed, it will die. Lesser forms of pure Calvinism can survive well on orthodoxy alone, but the more pure forms like Puritanism will die without theocracy. Hence, Puritanism today is merely folklore propagandized with spiritual sound bites.
What is orthodoxy? It’s the antithesis of Acts 17:11. It assumes a spiritual caste system where some are preordained to understand things that the average saint cannot understand. The average Christian searching the Scriptures to determine if a pastor is teaching truth was, and still is an unacceptable construct in European Calvinism. It is thought to prideful, unsubmissive, and a rejection of God-appointed authority. Orthodoxy is what the spiritually enlightened prepare for the unenlightened in creeds, confessions, and counsels. One advertisement I saw for a seminary announced that it was “confessional.” What does that mean? It means that it teaches and holds to historic confessions of faith. These confessions have authority, and were written by the, for example, “Westminster Divines.” Problem is, this passes a traditional interpretation from generation to generation on an assumptive basis; i.e., to rethink orthodoxy would be arrogantly reinventing the spiritual wheel. This is our heritage, and why we don’t know much. Creeds, confessions, and counsels do not deliver in-depth analysis on the aforementioned issues; primarily, they tell us how to think.
Therefore, the Potter’s House is a journey, and there is no looking back. We have learned astounding things from the book of Romans that Susan and I have never been taught in our combined eighty years of being Christians. But most importantly, what we have learned are building blocks that are keys to understanding more of God’s counsel. I think it is time in our study to look at some of these fundamental building blocks. Some speak directly to the chapter we are in. But first, let’s review some former ones:
1. The “gospel” is the good news of God’s full counsel for life and godliness. The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ is the gospel of “first importance” or “first order of importance.” “Word,” Scripture,” Gospel,” “holy writ,” etc., are all used interchangeably throughout the Bible.
2. Paul categorizes all people into two categories: under law, and under grace. Those under the law are enslaved to sin, provoked to sin by the law, and will be judged by the law. Those under grace are enslaved to righteousness, provoked to do good by the law, and will not be judged by the law.
3. The importance of angels in administering God’s covenants.
4. Salvation is Trinitarian, not Christocentric.
5. A major key to understanding the book of Revelation is Exodus 19-24.
6. The Bible interprets itself and identifies its own methods of interpretation.
7. The law is completely separate from justification, but informs our sanctification.
8. The difference between justification, definitive sanctification, progressive sanctification, and final sanctification.
9. The difference between salvation and justification.
10. Why Christians are truly righteous in the here and now.
11. Why Christians still struggle with sin.
12. The difference between our redeemed hearts and our mortality.
13. Motivation to share the gospel and better ways to do it.
14. Divine Anthropology: what makes mankind tick?
Other things are becoming clearer in our study concerning election and covenants which brings us closer to the issues at hand in chapter nine. I will save election for last because once that is discussed it will be all anybody is thinking about. I would like to use Ephesians 2:11-16 for our first point:
11 Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12 remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility 15 by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, 16 and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
This passage makes separation from the covenants of promise synonymous with being alienated from God. There is also more than one covenant of promise.
“Covenants” is in the plural. So, we don’t want to think of Old Testament Covenants as being replaced by the New, but rather we want to think of all of these covenants as building on each other. Also, the covenants will have future elements, abolished elements, and elements that are being phased out with time. Paul states what part of the Mount Sinai Book of the Covenant was “abolished,” the ordinances regarding sin offerings since Christ fulfilled the propitiation for sin (vv. 14, 15).
To be separated from Christ is also likened to being separated from the “commonwealth” of Israel (v. 12). This speaks to Israel as a nation. As we discussed last week, this doesn’t mean that all of national Israel will be saved. They were an elect nation with elect people, but not all in the nation are elected individually. Allegorically, some are descendants of Hagar and others are from Sarah. This symbolizes slavery to sin versus heirs of the promise. Paul wanted to make sure the Gentiles at Rome understood that rebellion within Israel didn’t mean that God had revoked His promises to Israel as a nation.
As yet, none of the covenants have been abolished. Again, some elements are yet future, some are fading away, and some elements have been abolished. Even the New Covenant has such elements. Jeremiah 31 states that the law of God will be written on everyone’s heart and there will be no need to teach anybody about the Lord. Obviously, that is future. We read the following in 1Corintians 13:8-10;
8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
Prophesies, tongues, and knowledge are all under the New Covenant (past, present), and when the perfect comes knowledge will pass away. Nobody will have need to be taught as Jeremiah predicted. That’s future. The “perfect” is what Peter said we are ultimately looking for: the new heavens and new earth:
1Peter 3:13 – But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
The “promise” is another name for the Abrahamic covenant which, as we looked at last week, included the Gentiles from the beginning.
Another truth about the Old Covenant is that it was a will. It was like the inheritance that your parents leave you in their will. The inheritance is eternal life, and Christ, the testator, had to die for the will to be executed:
Hebrews 9:15 – Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant. 16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established. 17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood.
And like any will, the inheritance is promised. In this sense, sin was bound up or imputed to the covenant until Christ came:
Galatians 3:15 – To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified.
Galatians 3:21 – Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
These are building blocks; neither do I have a full understanding about how all of this works together, but apparently sins were imputed to the covenat/will until Christ died. To be saved in the Old Testament was to acknowledge that you were an heir of salvation through Christ. So, Old Testament saints would have definitely been looking for the coming of Christ. Soon after Christ died, the Gentiles received the good news that they were part of the inheritance as well.
Furthermore, outside of the covenant there is a principle of reaping and sowing as well as a principle of reaping and sowing in the covenant as well. This is abundantly clear as Paul cites the Old Covenant in regard to blessings in this life:
Ephesians 6:1 – Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), 3 “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
Hence, promises of spiritual wellbeing through obedience are an undeniable part of the Old Covenant and most definitely still in effect presently. There is a lot going on in these covenants and confusion in our day is not lacking. Nevertheless, the Scripture explains all of this in further detail, but it takes diligent study to show ourselves approved. The following chart may be helpful in encouraging you to study these things for yourself.
Lastly, the relationship between covenants and election. I get my share of grief over my present understanding of election. I take a paradoxical position. Election is 100% true and is crucial for keeping justification and sanctification separate as well as eternal security. Paul, as we saw last week, states the purpose of election is no uncertain terms: to exclude works from justification. On the other hand, I believe free will is also 100% true. I believe this because it is what I see in the Scriptures. It comes with special privilege as well: I get accused of being both a Calvinist and Arminian. But Calvinists don’t believe in election, that’s a myth. For example, though Israel was clearly elected by God (DEUT 7:6-8), most of them hold to Supersessionism. That’s the belief that God replaced Israel with the church because they violated their covenant with God. This is a denial of election. The promise is not contingent on anything we do. It’s not conditional. Blessings and cursing/reaping and sowing is conditional, but not election. This same Reformed take on Israel applies to the individual as well: we are elected to participate in the race, but must be faithful to the church in order to not be disqualified from the race of faith. Calvinists don’t believe in election. As if their doctrine wasn’t goofy enough already—you can add that: the supposed sultans of election don’t even hold to it.
Besides, this paradox can be seen in real life. We implore people with all passion to be reconciled to God, especially Arminians. Yet, Arminians always credit God with saving the person. Few Arminians will ever be heard crediting themselves or the redeemed person for his/her salvation. Nor have I ever heard an Arminian pray to God that anyone would save themselves.
In additon, to satisfy my John Locke Christian friends, its science. Susan and I have a friend who is in the process of writing a book on God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. I will share a small portion of his manuscript to make my point:
Of course, it must be admitted that finite mankind has a limited capacity for understanding the workings of our Infinite Creator. Consequently, one practical way to resolve this challenge to our faith is to face up to the reality of our finite ability to understand God’s workings. In this approach, it is necessary to accept by faith those things that seem beyond any rational understanding. For many, this may be a satisfactory solution to the dilemma. In fact, a similar approach is sometimes followed in the field of science. Consider, for example, the physics of light where two seemingly contradictory theories are used side-by-side to explain its different properties. The wave theory is used to understand the oscillation aspects of light (e.g., Polaroid sunglasses), while at the same time the particle theory is employed to explain other applications (e.g., photoelectric solar panels). Although these two theories are totally incompatible, each provides useful information in certain technical applications. To date, scientists simply use the appropriate theory as needed for a particular design problem. There is no worry about whether light actually exists as a wave, or as a particle, just because it is not yet fully understood. This same approach may be taken in the spiritual realm and is probably the best stance to take in dealing with the apparent contradiction between individual free will and God’s total sovereignty.
As an avid reader of the Bible since my conversion in 1983, I began to take this position in 1986 and have not abandoned it yet. The apostles and others evangelized like it depended on them, but yet made strong statements regarding the sovereignty of God in salvation.
paul
For a free DVD of this message mailed to you at no charge, click here.
The Potter’s House is a member of the Home Fellowship Network: homefellowship.net
The Potter’s House: 3/31/2013; Romans 9:6ff. The Assurance of God’s Election and the Hope of Whosoever Will, Part 3
Election has a purpose. However you want to debate the issue, all should agree on that:
Romans 9:11 – though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”
God’s purpose of election is to remove all possibility of works from justification. This is clear. Therefore, election divides justification from sanctification completely. God goes to great extremes to make this as prevalent as He can. Though election is a difficult issue, verse 11 of this chapter could not be clearer on that point. Election makes salvation an issue of Him who calls rather than anything we do to contribute to justification.
But in sanctification (the Christian life), we are continually called to works. Therefore, those works must be seen as works that cannot affect our just standing. How could they if our calling was before the creation of the earth?
Romans 8:30 – And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Ephesians 1:4 – even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, 8 which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight 9 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Sanctification is an entirely different matter. The Scriptures must be interpreted with this dichotomy in mind. This is the only thing that explains the call to work aggressively in our Christian life while justification is by faith alone. If we were called, it is a settled issue:
John 6:35 – Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
We must contend that eternal security and election go hand in hand apart from works to maintain our just standing. If we can lose our salvation, the next question must be: WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO KEEP IT? And if we have to do anything to keep it, we are a participant in justification. What of those who eventually deny the faith and walk away to no faith or a false faith? They were never saved to begin with:
1John 1:19 – They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us. 20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth.
The historical events Paul cites in this chapter further explain the relationship of justification and law. This is important for the Gentiles to know because they are being integrated into a Jewish church, and movements within Judaism that propagated a works salvation by keeping the traditions of men were rampant. Remember, we find in our studies that these works systems are separate from truth and replace it with the ideas of men. This is probably because it makes law-keeping feasible. Ritual is always easier than love. True law-keeping is the direction and goal of sanctification, but justification is totally separate from law—this cannot be said enough.
As we begin to look at the history of covenants and their relationship to election, we will see that they work together toward the common goal of God dwelling with man on earth for eternity.
Genesis 12:1 – Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” 4 So Abram went, as the Lord had told him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran.
The plan from the very beginning was to include the Gentiles: “and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” And, God used events to demonstrate that the guarantee of this covenant was based on His promises alone. The first issue becomes Abraham and Sarah’s age. This is by design because the promised seed will be by a miracle of God and not anything that is a contribution from man:
Genesis 15:1 – After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” 2 But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” 4 And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” 5 And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
This is a very fundamental and important element of faith. Not a lot of theology in this conversation. It’s not that the informational part of faith is not important, but as we see here, it is fundamentally believing and trusting God Himself. Saving faith that justifies believes God. Much of what a new believer in God believes is information that comes later. The information itself takes a back seat to the fact that it came from God and that is why it is obeyed and accepted. Faith that justifies believes God Himself, and then whatever information comes from God later as a matter of trust and love. We may not always like it, but our dedication to God will result in a pattern of obedience.
Let’s continue to the next point:
Genesis 15:7 – And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” 8 But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” 9 He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” 10 And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. 11 And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
12 As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. 13 Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
17 When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. 18 On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, 19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, 20 the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21 the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
All of the whatnots concerning this covenant ritual aside, God puts Abraham in a deep sleep and consummates the covenant Himself. The faithfulness of the covenant will depend on God, not Abraham. God will fulfill this promise despite the failures of men—it doesn’t depend on man’s faithfulness, but God’s faithfulness. But mark it right here in Scripture: All of these promises to Abraham will be fulfilled. God even predicts the captivity in Egypt so that it will not be seen as proof that God forgot His chosen people or cast them away. While in Egypt, the Jews were transformed from a clan to a nation which required an additional covenant at Mt. Sinai. As we discussed in prior lessons, that covenant is consummated by force as prophesied in the book of Revelation. That is also when the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant is realized as well though not fully. The complete realization will be when heavenly Jerusalem descends from heaven and God tabernacles with man in the new heaven and new earth.
God combines the actions of men with His plan for finally dwelling with man in piece. This is a spectacular tapestry of God’s sovereignty and the actions of mankind woven together. In events, God is usually taking care of a lot of business, it is divine multitasking. While God’s nation is being incubated in Egypt along with the accumulation of possessions, the timing for using His nation to judge the Amorites will be right on schedule:
“And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (v.16).
And the fulfillment:
Joshua 12:1- Now these are the kings of the land whom the people of Israel defeated and took possession of their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise, from the Valley of the Arnon to Mount Hermon, with all the Arabah eastward: 2 Sihon king of the Amorites who lived at Heshbon and ruled from Aroer, which is on the edge of the Valley of the Arnon, and from the middle of the valley as far as the river Jabbok, the boundary of the Ammonites, that is, half of Gilead, 3 and the Arabah to the Sea of Chinneroth eastward, and in the direction of Beth-jeshimoth, to the Sea of the Arabah, the Salt Sea, southward to the foot of the slopes of Pisgah;
The next events are indicative of what happens when we are involved in God’s plan for salvation. God uses the events as recorded in Scripture to teach us the importance of salvation resting in His promises. Also, we see the reality of sanctification. Because we are born again, we display extraordinary acts of faith and obedience. We are also still mortal and weakened by the flesh which results in our pattern of faith being interrupted by boneheaded thinking and behavior:
Genesis 16:1 – Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. She had a female Egyptian servant whose name was Hagar. 2 And Sarai said to Abram, “Behold now, the Lord has prevented me from bearing children. Go in to my servant; it may be that I shall obtain children by her.” And Abram listened to the voice of Sarai. 3 So, after Abram had lived ten years in the land of Canaan, Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her servant, and gave her to Abram her husband as a wife. 4 And he went in to Hagar, and she conceived. And when she saw that she had conceived, she looked with contempt on her mistress. 5 And Sarai said to Abram, “May the wrong done to me be on you! I gave my servant to your embrace, and when she saw that she had conceived, she looked on me with contempt. May the Lord judge between you and me!” 6 But Abram said to Sarai, “Behold, your servant is in your power; do to her as you please.” Then Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her.
7 The angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness, the spring on the way to Shur. 8 And he said, “Hagar, servant of Sarai, where have you come from and where are you going?” She said, “I am fleeing from my mistress Sarai.” 9 The angel of the Lord said to her, “Return to your mistress and submit to her.” 10 The angel of the Lord also said to her, “I will surely multiply your offspring so that they cannot be numbered for multitude.” 11 And the angel of the Lord said to her, “Behold, you are pregnant and shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has listened to your affliction. 12 He shall be a wild donkey of a man, his hand against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he shall dwell over against all his kinsmen.” 13 So she called the name of the Lord who spoke to her, “You are a God of seeing,” for she said, “Truly here I have seen him who looks after me.” 14 Therefore the well was called Beer-lahai-roi; it lies between Kadesh and Bered. 15 And Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ishmael. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ishmael to Abram.
Family drama is usually the result of bad ideas, and this was a bad idea. Notice the involvement of the angel in counseling Hagar. Remember that in our Mt. Sinai interlude study we learned that the angels are the administrators of God’s covenants, and I think that’s what we are seeing here. Angels are very much involved in the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan. More than likely, the seven letters to the churches in Revelation were delivered by actual angels accordingly. Some interpret the word for angel there as the sole or most prominent pastor at that church. More likely is the idea that the letters were delivered by real angels. This might also indicate that each church has its own angel assigned by God. When Abraham turns 99 years old, God returned and stated the following:
Genesis 17:15 – And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.” 17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” 19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”
Abraham wanted God to establish the everlasting covenant through an heir of his own scheming; that wasn’t going to happen. Ishmael was technically an Israelite, but he serves to make Paul’s point in Romans nine: not all Israelites are of the promise just because they are Abraham’s offspring, and men do not contribute to the successful consummation of the promise in any way:
Romans 9:6 – But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, 7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as offspring. 9 For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”
Here is the specific reference in Genesis:
Genesis 18:9 – They said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” And he said, “She is in the tent.” 10 The Lord said, “I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah was listening at the tent door behind him. 11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years. The way of women had ceased to be with Sarah. 12 So Sarah laughed to herself, saying, “After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?” 13 The Lord said to Abraham, “Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’ 14 Is anything too hard for the Lord? At the appointed time I will return to you, about this time next year, and Sarah shall have a son.” 15 But Sarah denied it, saying, “I did not laugh,” for she was afraid. He said, “No, but you did laugh.”
Paul’s very next example to further illustrate His point is the twins Esau and Jacob born to Isaac and Rebecca. Technically, Esau was the heir because he emerged first:
Romans 9:10 – And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, 11 though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls— 12 she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
Israel was elected and the promise is founded on God’s faithfulness and plan alone. But not all are righteous decedents. Israel is an elected nation and has elect within according to the promise. Israel is comprised of those under the law, enslaved to sin, and headed for a judgment where they will be judged by the law. Then there is a remnant that is under grace, enslaved to righteousness, and will not stand in a judgment to determine their just standing:
Galatians 4:21 – Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. 23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. 24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written,
[Isaiah 54:1] “Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband.”
28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman [note what Paul is calling the “law” here. It is the historical account of the linage. A reminder from past studies that the Bible is “the law”].
Paul wanted the Gentiles at Rome to have a thorough understanding that they were children of the promise. Covenants of promise are completely apart from the law and works. Election guarantees that separation. That’s the positive side: free to aggressively obey God in sanctification without affecting the finished work of justification, and knowing that we are secure because our salvation was of God only. That’s the positive side. Next week, we will look at Paul’s anticipated objection from some:
Romans 9:19 – You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?
We will look at this deeper next week.
X-Ray the Idol Hunter Rumored to Make a Showing at 2013 Gospel Coalition in Orlando
“As Powlison brings the latest findings from Westminster’s research and development team on idol hunting, it only makes sense that X-Ray would want to be briefed.”
Those of you who have been a part of PPT since its beginning in 2009 are aware of who X-Ray the Idol Hunter is. She is kind of the Big Foot of New Calvinism. Her possible existence surfaced in 2010 during John Piper’s sabbatical. Piper said he was taking the sabbatical because he had observed several “species of pride” in his soul. According to other statements he made, he had consulted Tim Keller and Paul David Tripp on how to peel away several different levels of idolatry in order to find these “species.” Piper never identified the different species with biblical nomenclature.
Piper shared these things prior to beginning his sabbatical which had a predetermined length of eight months. The question soon became the following: how did Piper know that the eradication of these “species,” and all of the peeling away of many levels of idolatry in the soul, would take exactly eight months? If the species where wreaking enough havoc on his soul to cause him to step down for eight months, one must assume that eliminating these creatures would be efficacious.
Well, sure enough, Piper returned to the ministry eight months later. That’s when the rumors started. Obviously, Piper had an ace in the hole. It is doubtful that Sonship theology, the primary doctrine that promotes idol hunting in the heart would have been enough to guarantee such a victory. The doctrine was concocted by Dr. John “Jack” Miller in the 80’s and articulated by David Powlison and Paul David Tripp. David Powlison oversees a research and development team at Westminster Seminary that endeavors to come up with better and better ways to hunt down idols in the heart. Miller was able to identify twenty-five species of idols to get the ball rolling.
Powlison and Tripp devised what they call “X-Ray questions” that help people detect these idols which manifest themselves in our desires. All and all, Powlison has devised around 135 such questions. The questions reveal desires, and the desire leads to the species.
But after the return of Piper, people started asking questions, and strange manifestations began to be noticed at New Calvinist conferences where Piper, Powlison, Keller, and Tripp appeared. Powlison and Keller are self-proclaimed mentorees of John Miller. One such manifestation was seen on a conference website and appears below:
Furthermore, the following spears were found at yet another conference:
Putting it in a way that David Powlison would, X-Ray is kinda, perhaps, like a parody, but then again, kinda not to demonstrate the mindless New Calvinist following of mysticism on the issue of change. As Jay E. Adams well noted in his treatise against Sonship theology, idol hunting seems to be a kissing cousin to species of demons that supposedly cause Christians to sin. Hence, a different demon for each sin, and as Piper noted just prior to his last sabbatical, Tim Keller informs us that some levels of idol hunting are only obtained by fasting and prayer. Yet, someone had to know that the extraction of the “species” that were hounding Piper would only take exactly eight months to extract. PPT was sent a top secret picture of X-Ray, and we neither vouch for this picture nor deny it. Like Big Foot, the jury is kinda still out:
With Powlison, Keller, Tripp, and Piper all coming to this year’s Gospel Coalition conference in Orlando, a manifestation of X-Ray is very possible. As Powlison brings the latest findings from Westminster’s research and development team on idol hunting, it only makes sense that X-Ray would want to be briefed.
Stay tuned.
paul
23 comments