Guest Blogger Woody Crosthwaite: Praise Doesn’t Cover For Sin In The Camp
This is a message that should be heard more often, especially in our day when the New Calvinist tsunami makes praise and contemplation the summation of all Christian duty, with whatever the Lord decides to do following. Doing anything more than observing what “Jesus has done, not anything we would do,” is supposedly “making a list of do’s and don’ts the ground of our justification.” Sin is really no big deal, Jesus is going to do what He is going to do anyways—our job is to “lift up his name” and experience any obedience He throws our way as a “mere natural flow.” These kinds of passive doctrines are wreaking havoc on the church.
Churches suppose God will use them despite sin in the secret chambers. Hardly, and most leaders are experts at praise, and flunkies in regard to showing the saints how to control their bodies/passions and put on Christ with the word of God. Music about sanctification is hardly anywhere to be found while 7/11 music flourishes. That is, gospel music that is seven verses about Jesus repeated eleven times. Without further ado, Woody’s thoughts:
Sex in the church; and what happens when we harbor ‘secret sin!’ (Ezek. 8)
Let me just jump into this topic with a broad, very broad statement. There are a few, perhaps even many (?) men in YOUR church who view internet pornography somewhat regularly and end their session with self-gratification. Does that shock you? It should. This ‘secret sin’ affects men of all ages and from every walk of life. AND, your pastor, or someone on your pastoral staff may even be involved. Certainly, statistics show that leaders, Sunday school teachers, “worship” leaders, choir members, and especially young men are all involved in and many trapped in and by pornography and all that follows a session of viewing overt sexual material.
Few, very few churches are talking about this plague that is rampant in the church, and even fewer who are actually doing something about it. I want to share some other things with you, but before I do, let me lay the foundation of what I want to say.
In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul is talking about the parts of the body and what our attitude should be when we take our turn at being an arm or leg. But right in the middle of the discourse he makes a curious statement – he says that “…when one member suffers, all the members suffer with it…” (NKJV). He says right before that, that there should be no division in the body. I have always thought that he is referring to that part of the body that is persecuted; the persecuted church. (The church in Saudi Arabia, China, etc.,). I believe however, after careful consideration that anything that causes division, anything that breaks the family apart causes the WHOLE body to suffer. When the body suffers, true LOVE which is the “better way” Paul speaks of as he moves into chapter 13 is either inhibited or PROHIBITED in the church. If love, the love of Christ that John says is PERFECTED IN US (1 John 2:5) is in anyway sacrificed, then we CEASE being salt and light. Should this cause GREAT concern? Should we be SO concerned and care enough to fast, pray and cry out to God for the body to be cleansed of secret sin and be united in faith and love???? The body IS suffering, but few seem to notice or care. If the secret sin wasn’t bad enough, the lack of concern IN the Body, FOR the Body is EXTREMELY frightening.
I believe that the lust that tears at the heart and soul of men IN THE CHURCH is at such a level that we should stop, fast and pray for God’s deliverance for the men and boys whom satan has trapped and is destroying. We should take immediate, and drastic action because the “good things” that we think are happening on Sunday morning, (you know, the “vibrant, excited, and seemingly passionate worship”) is really nothing more than a facade. If a significant number of men are involved in sexual sin, and thoughts are clouded by sexual temptation then what goes on – on any given Sunday is nothing more than a continuation of a feeding of the flesh. Let me tell you why I believe this:
Read slowly and carefully, Ezekiel, chapter 8. In this vision, God takes Ezekiel in a vision to the temple. As God moves Ezekiel in closer and closer Ezekiel discovers a secret room INSIDE the sanctuary where the elders of Israel are worshipping idols. Does this story speak volumes, and LOUDLY to the integrity of the heart??? I believe it does. Men who think that they can live for the moment; live for the flesh and it’s lusts; and then just waltz in to church on Sunday morning and move to the beat of the music; clap, maybe even dance and “feel” so good…are delusional. The scene that Ezekiel saw in a vision is why God LEFT the temple. God will not share His throne with anyone or anything. Now, that speaks to personal integrity but it’s not just US that we should be concerned with! IF we suffer because God has left the throne room of our hearts, which should cause us to be VERY concerned with “secret sin,” and if that suffering spreads to the whole Body and causes the church to suffer…why are we not calling those in attendance to repentance so that the Body can be pure, whole and God honoring? Because of this “secret sin” that is without question harbored in the hearts of A LOT of men of every age, what we THINK is “worship” on Sunday morning is absolutely the product of self – centeredness and prideful, arrogant misunderstanding.
Most churches just jump right in on Sunday morning with a rousing round of peppy, even rocked out music that does little more than cover up the sexual impurity raging in the hearts and minds of more than a few men in the “service.” If we have NOT learned to take every thought into captivity, (2 Cor. 10:3-5) then the sexual appetite that has been fed all week will NOT, I repeat, WILL NOT be turned off by a few minutes of contemporary music. Guys…are you listening? You will glance at the women around you and your thoughts will be impure because you have fed your lusts all week! How then, will God be honored just because you sang a few songs??? You have been deceived, your “praise” is a stench to God and the Spirit is grieved. Again, if when one member of the body suffers we ALL suffer – what does that say about the real health of the body? I think we’re living in some sort of euphemistic world far from reality…
A NOTE TO THE WOMEN AND GIRLS OF OUR CHURCHES!
Women, you may fail to understand how a man’s mind works. Is holiness in dress just an old fashioned idea that pinned the church to some archaic and legalistic list of do’s and don’ts? Am I suggesting that you come to church looking like an 18th century puritan? No, but I am suggesting that men who struggle with impure, lustful thoughts will look at you, dressed in something short and tight and revealing and will NOT be able to worship God as God intends, because they can’t get images out of their heads. Do you WANT to be ‘sexy’ in your dress?? Then why would you NOT dress modestly, so that men could come closer to filling their minds with all that is good, rather than risk evil? There’s something really wrong with a picture that suggests that women dress for church as though they were headed for a style show as a model…I suggest you read Steven Arterburn’s book, “Every Man’s Battle.” If women don’t do their part in helping guys avoid (at ALL costs) lustful thoughts which prohibits praise, grieves the Spirit, and hinders the work of the church, then women should be as ashamed in promoting sex as men should be ashamed in exploiting sex. Girls who get up on “church day” and try to be “sexy” are disgusting to the heart of God. Girls, women; if that’s your desire – to look ‘sexy’ for your man, YOUR “praise” is also a stench in the nostrils of God).
This is serious…something must be done if we want God’s glory and His blessing to return to the church. He is NOT blessing His people in MANY places because we are not just ignoring and/or excusing sin, we are feeding and enabling it. I conclude this because too often there is fear of being too bold in the public forum and sin, therefore is not confronted. The whole counsel of God is not proclaimed. The other issue is, more importantly, one of true faith in God’s Word. We “say” we believe, but what we say, doesn’t seem to be mean anything. I have already asked you to consider the “suffering body” that suffers due to sin. But what of a more clear and non-negotiable image of what sin in the body will do? What of the story of Aiken? Will God, can God bless the church when there is “sin in the camp?”
We have settled for assimilation into a church program rather than following the Scriptural mandate to be born again as the ONLY way into the kingdom. People are coming to church and engaging in all kinds church ‘stuff’ but there is NO true life in the church because we are not sharing truth. One can ONLY be part of the church when a new life experience is gained in, by and through Jesus Christ and Him alone. There are few if any baptisms. There is no effort to help “believers” understand the imperative of seeking the Holy Spirit’s help to reveal a Christ like LIFE in, through and by His Spirit. The church discourages talk of integrity, openness, and honesty. We live individual lives, with no regard for community. Our propensity to lust after the flesh and do what seems right to us is a poison that has left the church impotent and ineffective. We are most deceived if we think that the church is having REAL and lasting change in our culture. We are impotent and it’s because we have created something we think is right, but in reality, our plans and programs are devices of our own idolatrous desire to please ourselves instead of God.
Because men hide the secret sin of sexual thought and action, our young men are even more so riddled and shredded by the same. Youth “pastors” are afraid to speak boldly and plainly about the lusts of the flesh, eyes, and pride of life for fear of alienating the students in their group. If the problem of dress is an issue between adult men and women; and women inadvertently choose attire that causes men to lust; the issue is compounded exponentially in adolescents and teens. Youth programs are often gutless as they feed the lusts of their young men by allowing the young women of the group to appear in ways that absolutely keep young men from actually worshipping God. The problem and issue of lust is as much a young women’s “problem” as a young man’s Why wouldn’t we want to share the truth about how young men think so that young women could dress more appropriately? Is it old fashioned? Then why are our young men agonizing over the trap satan has set. What’s wrong with young women who want to look like a cover girl when they know that they are driving the guys crazy?? (Sorry girls! I’m not angry or judgmental, but the cancer has to be healed!!!) We serve them up a diet of contemporary to rock to metal music and deceive them into thinking that because they spent a few minutes “rocking out,” that they have somehow closed the door on the secret sins of lust. More than likely, a short time before coming to “worship” and certainly within a short time afterwards they will have succumbed to temptation by viewing pornography on the internet and more than likely, in agony ended their session of lust with self gratification as their adult counterparts do. It is also likely that some youth ministers suffer themselves so are ill equipped to provide STRONG counsel and assistance to help youth resist temptation and live holy lives. Oh, we can’t talk to kids about holiness of mind, spirit and life however; we may cause them too much discomfort and alienate them from being part of our mind – numbing, dumb – downing multi-media extravaganzas that leave their temples as unholy as was the temple Ezekiel saw.
That’s why we have precious few youth in love with Jesus, His Word; His church and able to rightly divide Scripture, anoint the sick, preach sermons, write and teach Bible studies; bleed for the lost and grieve with the persecuted church. They are yet in kindergarten and need weekly supplies of crayons, play-doh, and construction paper to even sit for a few minutes in a gathering that is nothing more than mindless rhetoric. Time is short. God is about to do something so radical that “adults” will be in shock, much less our youth.
Shame on youth leaders, ministers and pastors that want to merely entertain rather than grow a church ready to fulfill Matthew 16. We had better get ready! We had better prepare our people for the days ahead instead of figuring out every way we can to feed our flesh. God help us!!!
What’s in a Video? Part Three: Al Mohler’s Mystic Contemplationism
The next snippet of profound unction in the 2012 Resolved Conference promotion video (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc) is that of Al Mohler, president of Southern Theological Seminary. Along with CJ Mahaney, he is one of the “core four” of the Together For The Gospel conferences. Again, a close examination of words used in this video speak to the false doctrine they teach, and Mohler’s excerpt is no exception.
Mohler refers to us being continually “rescued” by the Scriptures. Per the usual, the verbiage is deliberately ambiguous, and could apply to initial salvation or our life as Christians, or both. There is a sense in which the Scriptures continually save Christians from the consequences of sin and instruct us on how to please the Lord. But Mohler is speaking of using the Scriptures to contemplate on the gospel with the result being, as stated by others, a “mere natural flow” of obedience. This is because it is not really us obeying, it is a manifestation of the active obedience of Christ. John Piper would say that we experience the manifestation of Christ’s active obedience in our lives when the obedience is accompanied by a willing spirit and joy. If we are confronted with the necessity to obey, and have not the joy, Piper’s counsel is to go ahead and obey, but ask for forgiveness:
I am often asked what a Christian should do if the cheerfulness of obedience is not there. It’s a good question. My answer is not to simply get on with your duty because feelings don’t matter. They do! [Especially since he makes joy synonymous with true salvation in When I Don’t Desire God]. My answer has three steps. First, confess the sin of joylessness. ( John Piper: Treating Delight as Duty is Controversial ebooklet; ch3, Desiring God.org )
This is simply the Bibliology of their doctrine: the Bible has one primary purpose; it is for contemplating the gospel and the works of Christ. Biblical imperatives are a fruit catalog of things we can’t do, and are in the Bible to evoke thankfulness to Christ for obeying the imperatives for us. The result of this Gospel Contemplationism is what they call, “new obedience,” or what Piper calls, “Beholding as a way of becoming.” If you read the Forward to Uneclipsing The Son by Rick Holland, you will also find out that John MacArthur Jr. has bought into this nonsense. The secondary use of the Scriptures is for controlling the totally depraved zombie sheep and church polity.
Of course, they are not going to say it plainly, but this all boils down to the idea that we are resaved every day. Their motto is, “The same gospel that saved us also sanctifies us.” It’s a progressive justification. They call it “progressive sanctification,” but that’s deception. Likewise, New Calvinist Paul David Tripp teaches that Romans 7:24 refers to a “daily rescue” (Paul David Tripp: Playing With The Box; Southeastern Theological Seminary chapel service, Spring 2007). Couple that with the New Calvinist maxim, “We need the gospel just as much today as when we got saved,” and the kind of “rescue” they are talking about is apparent.
And this is also exactly what Mohler means in the promo clip when he said we are “rescued by the Scriptures.”
paul
A Passing Thought on Something John Piper Wrote
“We have moved far away from the biblical Christianity of Jonathan Edwards.”
~John Piper
Actually, it has never been my goal to move toward the Christianity of any mere man; the Christianity we are moving away from is that of Jesus Christ Himself. And I really don’t care to read the musings of some guy that lived hundreds of years ago who had to write a whole book in order to communicate what Jesus Christ can say in one sentence. And I know this is utterly shocking to you Dr. Piper, but I am not going to take your word for it that Edwards followed Christ. Again, I would have to read all of his stuff , and why would I do that? The 42 guys in the closed canon are a sure bet, who is Jonathan Edwards?
What’s in a Video? Part Two: Rick Holland as Sectarian
“For the most part, these are the most influential pastors in the country being challenged with an exclusive gospel. How can that not send cold chills up the backs of discerning Christians?”
My YouTube page is not something that I promote; it is really just a workshop for my videos that are used on PPT. So, any hits on them directly on YouTube are just incidental from web surfers. However, the amount of hits on the 2012 Resolved promo clip, even in the short time that I have had it uploaded is astounding, not to mention my surprise that incidental surfers are also commenting on the video. The video has received nothing but negative comments, zero likes, and to date, 12 dislikes. Apparently, the promo clip doesn’t play well with the world in general. Keep in mind that these videos are not posted on YouTube in any particular context.
But that’s no big deal with this bunch; as others have aptly pointed out, they do not target individuals, unregenerate or otherwise, they are targeting churches, and rich ones. Note the locations of their conferences; even if many could afford the entry fee, most folks can’t afford to take one step in Palm Springs. Of course, a lot of this is being funded out of church budgets; i.e., churches (and the hard working average Joes that support them) are paying for their leaders to learn a false gospel, and to come back to take over their church with it.
Since Grace Community Church has been the promoter of this conference for nine years, the order of the pontification in the promo clip by the enlightened ones are of logical order. First, the big cheese, MacArthur; second, former GCC staff member and primary promoter Rick Holland; third, Al Mohler; fourth, Steve Larson; lastly, CJ Mahaney.
The words used by Holland are very specific and telling. The conference is very “serious” about, “God,” “sin,” “commitment,” and “the gospel.” The clear implication is that most churches don’t really know God in a significant way, what sin really is, or what the gospel really is. Farfetched? Well, words mean things. Holland states in the clip that the conference is an “opportunity” to “INTRODUCE” how to “experience” God in an “intimate” way. The clear assumption is that attenders don’t already know that. For what other reason would there be an introduction? For the most part, these are the most influential pastors in the country being challenged with an exclusive gospel. How can that not send cold chills up the backs of discerning Christians?
The biblical definition of “heretic” in the Bible is really “sect.” The word primarily refers to groups that promote false doctrine, or individuals who belong to such groups. Specifically, they are groups that divide the church with false doctrine. That is the specific biblical definition of heresy, and it is always linked to division in the church. Quibbling about the color of the carpet may cause divisions in the church, but the Bible never mentions it. Again, division is always linked to sectarianism.
Hence, churches might as well be efficient and hire Dr. Kevorkian to come in and do the job forthwith. It’s cheaper, faster, and far less painful. Congregants can also get a head start with “moving on with their lives.” And also, they won’t have to be offended by hearing about how all the sacred sacrifice that built their church was for naught, and performed by people who didn’t even know what the gospel is.
Ya, pay for your pastor to go to the 2012 Resolved Conference. Do that, great idea.
paul
What’s in a Video? Part One: MacArthur’s Fall
“CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent …. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.”
The promo video for this year’s 2012 Resolved Conference is sickening for anybody that can think for themselves. I use YouTube to post my videos, and have received comments from people there regarding the clip (http://youtu.be/3BbyzPkE_kc):
Where is my barf bag? God, please deliver us from conferences and churches,
Kinda hokey. Just from the images…who do you think is being worshiped here?
For anybody who has any grey substance between their ears at all, it’s obvious who is being worshiped. But the video was not designed out of the figment of somebody’s imagination. The images and what is stated has meaning. I received the following comments on my blog concerning the light from heaven thing going on in the video:
Paul I am confused about the sparkly stuff that is falling down on these enlightened ones. Is this fairy dust?
That was very disturbing to watch.
What’s with the beams of light streaming down behind them and all the little snowflakes? It looks like they are trying to make them look like they are speaking to us from heaven or something…all ethereal and everything.
I was thinking of the same things you were about the fairy dust- strange indeed. Another thing to notice was the movie like ending of the promo- felt like I was about to watch the avengers or transformers. I guess that epic ending was to evoke a response of awe and wonder at the sheer excitement of seeing the “Christian” heros of modern evangelical movement. Next we will see them donned with capes and claim abilities of being able to see right through your depraved soul [actually, Mark Driscoll is making that claim of late].
But believe it or not, the “light from heaven” thing has meaning. Notice that the beams of light come down, but the little dots are going up. That’s the Gnostic cybernetic loop of how the totally depraved zombie sheep receive the truth of the gospel. The truth of the word is cycled from heaven through the spiritually enlightened elders. Farfetched? Well then, consider this statement from heretic/New Calvinist Dr. Devon Berry:
The text here implies that there was an interactive nature between three entities: The preacher, the hearers, and the Word. Note this cycle: Paul, from the Word, delivers words. The Bereans, from Paul’s words, go to the Word. The Word cycles from God, through the preacher, to the people, back to the Word, and this, verse 12 tells us, produced belief in the God of the Word. An important thing to note is that this happened daily – suggesting a regular interaction between preaching, personal study, and the Word.
Berry was making the case throughout the particular message that sanctifying truth only comes through Reformed elders, a belief widely held among New Calvinists. And I believe that the coming down of light, and the going up of the dots are a subtle allusion to the direct connection that New Calvinists believe these men have with heaven that is efficacious to the evangelical peasantry. Other illusions to Gnosticism in this video will be mentioned in the forthcoming parts.
In all, MacArthur’s willingness to be a part of all of this speaks for itself. It is an endorsement of the worst kind of heresy (the fusion of justification and sanctification) and those who propagate it. MacArthur’s appearance at this conference illustrates his utter indifference to basic biblical principles; such as, the importance of reconciliation, justice, and the qualifications of elders. CJ Mahaney could not be an elder in MacArthur’s church for many reasons, but yet, MacArthur joyfully gives him credibility as being an elder par excellent. MacArthur also shows his true heart towards the spiritually abused and his total lack of compassion towards them. MacArthur’s endorsement of Mahaney assumes his innocence in a long list of unresolved conflict, and rubs salt in the wounds of Mahaney’s victims.
The only thing in all of this that could be virtuous for MacArthur is the fact that this is the “Culmination” of the Resolved Conference. I strongly suspect that this is MacArthur’s way of gaining separation from Mahaney. But at the same time, it makes him a party to the concerted effort to protect the image of the New Calvinist movement which propagates a blatantly false gospel. It’s no accident that MacArthur is no longer invited to the T4G conference, and it is no accident that this conference (primarily sponsored by MacArthur’s church; ie, he has some control of it) is going to be terminated. Something is going on, but like the Piper controversy at Mac’s church, and the Mahaney controversy at RC Sproul’s church, nobody is talking. The image of the spiritual Camelot of our day must be protected. Gag.
paul
By Their Fruits You Will Know Them
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., [Mahaney] Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 [pp. 10-11]
C.J.:
Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I. [now SGM].
Larry:
C.J., I‘m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God‘s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.:
If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins.
Larry:
Justin‘s name has been floated out there when there‘s statements like “revealing more details about my sin.” What are you getting at?
C.J.:
Justin‘s name isn‘t just “floated out there” – I‘m stating it!
Larry:
C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him, “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won‘t be told.” I repeatedly reassured him: “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn‘t worry.” Now you‘re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.:
My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris:
C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You‘ll make no mention of Justin‘s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin‘s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!
Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastor’s teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”
C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.:
I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We‘ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris:
I want Justin to be part of that call. It‘s his life that‘s at stake.‖
C.J.:
Fine.
C.J. never spoke with us [Larry and Doris] again. He was not a participant in the critical phone meetings that followed.
Abused Congregation Pioneering Exodus From New Calvinism
A group of embattled, ravaged parishioners have ultimately lost the fight to save their church from a business as usual New Calvinist hostile takeover. Per the usual, their pleadings to other churches and ministries for help fell on deaf, indifferent ears. Authority = truth; game over. The teachings that these Christians endured for the better part of two years was hyper-antinomianism on steroids. The pastor’s sermons were so outrageous that a visiting adolescent was disturbed by the idea that she couldn’t do anything to please the Lord that she loves. Got millstone?
However, I must say, they put up one heck of a fight. But what they are seriously considering next is phenomenal, and will be the wave of the future—they are starting their own church. If the leaders that comprise their fellowship of churches will not stand with them when wolves attack, what else is left? As author John Immel aptly states it:
When the sheep figure out that the shepherd only defends against the wolf because he wants the same wool and mutton. When it dawns on his herd animal mind that he will be eaten either way, he finally stands up like a man and argues against the definition of “God’s Glory” equaling being served up for dinner. In that moment, the howl from the wolves and the shepherds is the same.
I received this news along with a request for some suggestions on what should be the primary focus of a new church, but first, there has been an ongoing request from the same folks for remarks on Transitioning: Leading Strong-arming Your Church Through Change by Dan Sutherland. So, I will kill two birds with one stone here.
The book was one of the worst books I have ever read in my life. Not because of its wicked protocol for taking over churches, but rather its lifeless outline form with worn-out clichés and churchy truisms making up the points and sub points. The whole book can be summed up the same way:
1. Vision.
A. Sell a group of leaders on your vision.
B. Find a way to eliminate any mere sippers of the Koolaid from the leadership team.
2. Divide the congregation into small groups.
A. Put the groups under the authority of the Kool-aid guzzling leadership team.
3. Mark those who dare think for themselves.
A. Begin process of neutralizing thinkers.
4. Totally depraved zombie sheep resist change only because its change and would
wonder aimlessly about without the strong guidance of the enlightened ones.
5. Totally depraved zombie sheep cannot handle change because:
A. They think they only need grass and a pond.
B. They don’t like new stuff.
C. They think more sheep equals less grass for them.
D. They are afraid the Shepherd won’t have time to find them if they get lost.
E. If too much is going on, they will forget where the pond is.
Now, for suggestions on starting a new church. First, broadcast the idea that you are Bible centered, and make the Bible your sole authority for everything. I see God’s people becoming very hungry for this. Second, focus on Christ’s mandate to make disciples. Third, the leaders should equip, and the congregation should minister. Fourth, unity is measured by agreement on truth, and nothing else. Fifth, elder led, and elder/congregational rule. In our day, do I really have to sell that? Sixth, Jay Adams has done most of the heavy lifting on sanctification stuff. Invest heavily in his material. When word gets out that real help can be found there from the word of God, trust me, people will come. The gospel is problem-centered. Seventh, don’t let cowards into leadership. Eighth, don’t let anti-separatist into leadership. Ninth, never forget what you have learned from your wounds. Tenth, don’t over-react to your wounds in planning for the future.
And lastly, you have no idea how much freedom and joy in the Lord you are going to experience if you do this.
God’s speed my dear friend,
paul
Unreconciled? What Now?
As I recently stated in the post, Is Love and Forgiveness Always the Same Thing? http://wp.me/pmd7S-1wk, we cannot always avoid having enemies. As much as it depends on us, and if possible, we should be at peace with all people (Romans 12:18). I wrote of the necessity for repentance before forgiveness is granted. What is forgiveness? If God is our model, forgiveness does not “remember” the sin any longer (Isaiah 43:25 Heb. 8:12; 10:17. Antithesis: Ps.109:14). That doesn’t necessarily mean the event will be vanquished from our mind, and of course, God doesn’t forget things. It means that we will not bring the matter up again to ourselves (dwelling, Phil. 4:8), the other person (revenge), or others (gossip). Furthermore, the forgiveness must also be like God’s forgiveness in that fellowship/relationship follows. In one instance that I know of where reconciliation took place between two Christians, one recommended that they should make it a point to seek each other out as a first priority on every Sunday morning for the purpose of greeting each other. That’s impressive, and according to biblical wisdom.
Unfortunately, many are taught in our day that they must, “forgive and forget” in every circumstance. If they do that, they are “doing it for themselves” and it will lead to a peaceful life. Hence, many live in misery under the burden of unresolved conflict and the forced acceptance of watching the behavior continually propagated on others. To expose or confront is not “forgiving and forgetting.” In addition, the neglect of holding people accountable is not exactly a loving act in and of itself. Supposedly, not forgiving will only lead to bitterness, perpetual anger, and joylessness.
Not so. Those that we are not reconciled to in the Bible are referred to as “enemies,” and we are to love them. You can love someone that you are angry with. We are to be angry without sin (Eph. 4:26); sinful anger is revenge (Rom. 12:19). Anger itself is not sin; God is often angry:
Psalm 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Psalm 4:4
Be angry, and do not sin; ponder in your own hearts on your beds, and be silent.
Psalm 18:7
Then the earth reeled and rocked; the foundations also of the mountains trembled and quaked, because he was angry.
Psalm 79:5
How long, O LORD? Will you be angry forever? Will your jealousy burn like fire?
Psalm 80:4
O LORD God of hosts, how long will you be angry with your people’s prayers?
Psalm 85:5
Will you be angry with us forever? Will you prolong your anger to all generations?
First, our focus and goal should always be reconciliation. As mentioned in the other post, doing good to our enemies lends opportunity for reconciliation. We should also continue to hold them accountable whether the church does what it is supposed to do or not, but without vengeful acts. By the way, revenge in our mind must be excluded also. Vengeful thinking is what leads to bitterness when forgiveness cannot be granted, not the lack of forgiveness itself. Can we promise a rapist or a sexual abuser that we will never bring up their unrepentant behavior in the future? Hardly!
Secondly, Matthew 18 cuts both ways. If a pastor or elders refuse to repent when you go to them according to the Matthew 18 process, and the congregation or other leaders refusing to hold them accountable notwithstanding (“For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them”), keep in mind that they may be treated like unbelievers in such cases. By all means, when the opportunity arises, preach the gospel to them. Who excluded them from the Matthew 18 process?
Thirdly, Make sure you have asked for forgiveness where you were unbiblical in the situation. That puts the ball in their court as far as your responsibility in the matter. Don’t apologize, ask for forgiveness. And exclude all “….but….” If they bring up issues where you have no biblical fault, DO NOT seek forgiveness on that issue because that is not repentance according to the truth. God will not honor it. If you are not sure their issue is valid—postpone your response and seek counsel from the word and others who have wisdom in this area.
Fourthly, pray for your enemies specifically (Matthew 5:44). How would you like to see the situation resolved? What do you really want for that person’s life? James said we do not have because we do not ask.
Fifthly, in your duty to expose, warn, confront, love, learn (remember, God has allowed this in your life for a reason), and reconcile if possible, pick your thinking and conversation carefully. “Dwelling” (a kissing cousin to revengeful thinking or murdering people in our heart) is not constructive towards a solution or cause. Read Philippians, chapter four in regard to what kind of thinking leads to peace.
paul
Passing Thoughts on the Calvin Institutes
Throughout the Calvin Institutes, one asks, “Is he talking about justification or sanctification?” Yes. Like the “New Calvinists” of this day, Calvin used ambiguous pronouns that could refer to mankind in general or Christians. And I think deliberately so. This is a communication technique that New Calvinists learned from Calvin himself. It is a way to say the two are the same thing without stating it plainly.
No New Thing Under The Sun: Chuck Taze Russell Verses Julie Anne Ross
From Wikipedia on the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses and pastor J.J. Ross:
In June 1912 Rev. J. J. Ross (1871–1935), Pastor of the James Street Baptist Church in Hamilton, Ontario, published and widely distributed a four-page leaflet entitled, Some facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell (of Millennial Dawn Fame), alleging that Russell was involved in questionable business practices, had defrauded his estranged wife, and denounced his qualifications, legitimacy and moral example as a Pastor.[88] Russell in turn sued Ross for defamatory libel on December 2, 1912.[89] After several delays the case came before Police Court Magistrate G. F. Jelfs on March 17, 1913.
During cross-examination Russell stated that he had attended public school for only seven years having left when he was about fourteen years of age after which he received instruction through private tutors.[90] He responded that he was versed in Latin terms “to an extent” but did not know Hebrew or Greek, that he had never been ordained by any bishop or minister, and had never attended a theological seminary or any schools of higher learning.[91][92] The Hamilton and Toronto Ontario newspapers reported the claims made by Ross and provided a brief outline of the court proceedings, but made no reference to misconduct on the part of Russell, and criticized Ross for having fled Ontario when summoned and not being present during any of the court proceedings.[93][94]
On April 1, 1913 the High Court of Ontario returned a verdict of “No Bill” ruling that Russell was not entitled to damages because the libel was not likely to result in any violence within Canada.[95][96] Following the libel case Ross published an expanded edition of 48-pages entitled Some Facts and More Facts about the Self-Styled “Pastor” Charles T. Russell (of Millennial Dawn Fame). In this work Ross claimed that during the proceedings on March 17, 1913 Russell had repeatedly lied under oath by affirming that he was ordained but then denying the same when cross-examined, by affirming that he knew the Greek language, but when shown by Counselor Staunton an extract from the New Testament in Greek by Westcott & Hort he was unable to recognize it, and that he had not been divorced from his wife, but retracted the statement under cross-examination.[97]
In response to Ross’s accusations, Russell stated through various printed and public sources that he had never claimed knowledge of the Greek language, merely the alphabet[98] and that early Christians were also criticized by the religious authorities for being unlearned and ignorant.[99] He believed that his ordination was “of God” according to the biblical pattern, not requiring any denominational approval or theological training indicating that his annual election as “Pastor” by over 500 congregations worldwide constituted him as properly ordained.[100][101] Russell contended that Ross and others were attacking him because they were unable to answer his theological arguments preferring instead to resort to slander and character assassination.[102]
A Passing Thought on Chapter Twelve in the Calvin Institutes
All of Chapter 12 in the Calvin Institutes, from the first word to the last, is a diatribe on completely emptying ourselves as Christians in regard to any self-confidence or worth in order to receive God’s blessings. Job one, for the Christian, is to constantly endeavor in a deeper understanding of our own depravity. Calvin’s philosophy led many to think those who disagreed should be burned alive with the paper that their ideas were written on, while ironically, Calvin thought himself more compassionate and argued that their ideas should be humanely severed from their bodies.
6 Minute Promotion for June TANC Conference @ Germantown Baptist Chapel
Conference website: tcanc.citymax.com
Does God Like Hell?
Is it just me, or does Piper seem to be making up his answer as he goes?
Jerry Bridges Proffers Gospel-Driven Bondage
“….they’re going to show pastors how to *see justification only* throughout the whole Bible. If they were forthright, that’s how they would state it.”
“’Jesus / gospel‘ replaces ‘justification,’ and masks the real intent: to make every verse in the Bible about justification and thereby eradicating the use of the Law in sanctification.”
Let me begin with some groundwork.
Hi, My Name is Amy—I’m a Sinner
The opening line of an author under the tab, “about” propagating “gospel-centered” theology (ie., antinomianism, Sonship Theology, New Calvinism, Gospel contemplation) reminds me of the infamous introductions at AA meetings: “Hi, my name is Bob—I’m an alcoholic ‘Hi Bob.’” Amy Engle, the author of A Voice Crying Out blog (apparently because we are desperate rather than those who are much more than conquers through Jesus Christ) states it this way: “I’m…
The Real Integrity of the Men of the 2012 Resolved Conference
The Advertisement:
Who they are and what they endorse:
Transcript of Phone Conversation between C.J., [Mahaney] Doris and Larry Tomczak on October 3, 1997 [pp. 10-11]
C.J.:
Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I. [now SGM].
Larry:
C.J., I‘m not in sync with any of the T.U.L.I.P., so whether you agree or not, doctrine is one of the major reasons I believe it is God‘s will to leave P.D.I. and it does need to be included in any statement put forth.
C.J.:
If you do that, then it will be necessary for us to give a more detailed explanation of your sins.
Larry:
Justin‘s name has been floated out there when there‘s statements like “revealing more details about my sin.” What are you getting at?
C.J.:
Justin‘s name isn‘t just “floated out there” – I‘m stating it!
Larry:
C.J. how can you do that after you encouraged Justin to confess everything; get it all out. Then when he did, you reassured him, “You have my word, it will never leave this room. Even our wives won‘t be told.” I repeatedly reassured him: “C.J. is a man of his word. You needn‘t worry.” Now you‘re talking of publically sharing the sins of his youth?!
C.J.:
My statement was made in the context of that evening. If I knew then what you were going to do, I would have re-evaluated what I communicated.
Doris:
C.J., are you aware that you are blackmailing Larry? You‘ll make no mention of Justin‘s sins, which he confessed and was forgiven of months ago, if Larry agrees with your statement, but you feel you have to warn the folks and go national with Justin‘s sins if Larry pushes the doctrinal button? C.J., you are blackmailing Larry to say what you want!
Shame on you, C.J.! As a man of God and a father, shame on you!
This will send shock waves throughout the teens in P.D.I. and make many pastor’s teens vow, “I‘ll never confess my secret sins to C.J. or any of the team, seeing that they‘ll go public with my sins if my dad doesn‘t toe the line.”
C.J., you will reap whatever judgment you make on Justin. You have a young son coming up. Another reason for my personally wanting to leave P.D.I. and never come back is this ungodly tactic of resorting to blackmail and intimidation of people!
C.J.:
I can‘t speak for the team, but I want them to witness this. We‘ll arrange a conference call next week with the team.
Doris:
I want Justin to be part of that call. It‘s his life that‘s at stake.‖
C.J.:
Fine.
C.J. never spoke with us [Larry and Doris] again. He was not a participant in the critical phone meetings that followed.
Is Love and Forgiveness Always the Same Thing?
At least in this country, we live in a unique time. I like to preface these kinds of generalizations with “in this country” because our tendency is to see things through a Western perspective, especially the Reformation which was primarily a European thing. That’s why I have begun studying (in preparation for a third book I am writing) the church history of other regions like Africa and China.
But back to the present day in this country; with spiritual despotism being rampant, the subject of forgiveness is heavy in the air. Thinking Christians find themselves in a quandary: how do we hold people accountable with a pure heart void of revenge? Or should we hold people accountable at all? Should we “forgive and forget”? After all, we should forgive the way we were forgiven, right?
Indeed, this is tricky territory, but may I start from a practical standpoint? There seems to be this thing called unresolved conflict that makes “forgiving and moving on with our lives” a lot easier said than done. In fact, I wonder if people who have been wronged with no resolution who say they have “moved on with their lives” have really done so. You can move on, but what is going with you?
Then there is the following question: is it likely that what has been done to you will also be done to others by the same person/people? Now things get really tricky. I don’t think the Bible covers prevention specifically, but it may be a matter of God-given common sense. Not wanting to hold individuals accountable for what they did to you for prevention purposes because it is uncomfortable or not your personality may be deemed selfish. Moreover, it could be argued that you are partially responsible for unhindered future acts.
As one who has had to struggle with this question, let me give you the best answer I have to date: we need to hold people accountable in a biblical way, and there is also some liberty involved. The apostle Peter said that “love covers a multitude of sin,” and I do think we have the liberty to cover offences with love (barring complicity or putting others in danger). But if we find ourselves without the grace to not continually bring up the offence to ourselves, to the offender, and to others, that’s a huge problem. That’s unresolved conflict bouncing around in our minds and refusing to go away.
In such cases, the Bible prescribes a process for resolution; we all know what it is, Matthew 18:15-20. Though only six verses, it covers every conceivable situation. Considering the source, that shouldn’t surprise us. Let me just mention a few. In the first step, we may find out that the offence was just a simple misunderstanding. In the second step, and with the help of the two witnesses, we may find out that we are being petty and making a mountain out of a molehill. However, if that’s not the case and it goes further, there is no guarantee that the church as a whole will see it the same way. I think that is why Jesus refers back to the second step in verse 20. Think about it: the third step involves the whole church, but he refers back to the second step.
Nevertheless, the whole church confronting an individual is very powerful, and will probably yield results, and excludes anything in the process from being behind closed doors. If the results are not favorable, the wronged person receives the support of the whole church. The church states that they will not fellowship with said person or persons until they reconcile with you. Not only that, the person/persons are prevented from doing the same thing to others in the same church, and theoretically, any other church when they disallow membership because of former unresolved issues with another church. Prevention. No?
Now, it is true, the apostle Paul said that we are to forgive as we have been forgiven. That’s the gospel, right? Well, partly. I wouldn’t be dogmatic about this, but if you want to bring the gospel into this, the following is at least a fair question: Did God forgive us without our repentance? Furthermore, Christ said that “IF” the offender “listens to you,” you have gained a brother. In Luke 17 concerning the same subject, Christ said to forgive your brother seven times seventy “IF” he repents. If he repents, you “must forgive him.” In the parable of the unmerciful servant, we find that we are to also forgive if there is repentance, but restitution is not possible. That’s the gospel; we repented, but certainly, the only restitution we have to offer is in Christ. But also, on the horizontal level, we must remember the example of Zacharias when restitution is possible.
So, if we are sinned against, and the offending party refuses to repent, are we obligated to forgive them? I’m not sure about that (while leaning toward, “no”), but I am sure about the following: we are obligated before God to love our enemies. Note that it is interesting that the Lord states that we will have enemies. What is a biblical “enemy”? May I suggest that it is someone that we are not reconciled to? This would seem apparent. In regard to our enemies, we are not to take revenge on them. The apostle Paul is very specific about this in Romans 12. If our enemies have a need that we are aware of, we are to fulfill that need. The Old Testament law stated that if we happened across our enemy’s oxen that had gotten loose, we were obligated to return it to him/her. Paul wrote that if our enemy is hungry, we are to feed him/her. I would imagine that such opportunities are divine appointments that lend great opportunity for reconciliation (as an aside to the aforementioned point concerning the gospel, the gospel is also referred to in the Bible as being “reconciled to God”).
But is holding someone accountable also an act of love? Proverbs states: “The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, but the wounds of a friend are faithful.” And, “Be angry but sin not.” Let me suggest that we may be angry with someone, and not obligated to forgive them without repentance, but obligated to love them. Does not God love many enemies daily by giving them breathe and a litany of other innumerable resources? Being angry at those whom we are un-reconciled with is not revenge. It is interesting to note that in Romans, Paul immediately speaks of being subject to government authorities after instructing Christians to not avenge themselves. I think these thoughts are related. In regard to revenge that is not against civil law: “….bless, and do not curse them.” We are to bless our enemies and conduct ourselves “honorably” (Romans 12) before all in regard to them, but remember, that does not exclude holding them accountable.
There is another point that I am certain of, and unlike the daring assertion that Christians are not obligated to forgive without reconciliation. Christians are not called to a mental/emotional decision to forgive from the heart—it simply won’t work. A true forgiveness from the heart must be solidified by action. Forgiveness and love in the Bible are ALWAYS related to some kind of action. We don’t love our enemies from the mind only. Neither do we forgive them from the mind only. The apostle Paul NEVER stated that we are to, “Forgive and forget, or “forgive and move on with our lives.” We are to not do this (curse), and to do that (bless) instead. We don’t ignore their needs, but rather feed them instead.
But all in all, the vast majority of unresolved conflict in the church today is the non-application of the Matthew 18 process by leaders and for leaders. Hordes of today’s leaders will fellowship with each other, and give each other credibility despite the long list of unreconciled conflict that they have with other Christians. This puts the laity in tricky waters.
But that’s not on us. That’s on them. And I hope these thoughts lend some worthwhile ideas to the chosen direction. However, non-action is not an option, and forgiveness does not always walk with love.
paul
Beaverton Scandal is Just More New Calvinist Spiritual Tyranny
Frustrating. Once again, we are focused on symptoms and not the disease. New Calvinism and its doctrine/philosophy is the disease, Beaverton is a symptom. Beaverton what? Beaverton as in Beaverton Grace Bible Church in Beaverton, Oregon. Here is their website: http://www.beavertongracebible.org/. And here is the scandal: http://bgbcsurvivors.blogspot.com/2012/05/anticipation.html.
Another survivors website to add to my blogroll. But it is the same old story: 1; New Calvinism comes to a church. 2; Members start asking questions. 3; New Calvinists use the techniques they learn at conferences to dissuade concerns. 4; But most churches have at least a few people that can think for themselves which = trouble/possible exposure that the leadership is slowly assimilating the “unadjusted gospel” into the minds of the people. 5; Since one of the tenets of this doctrine is that the (usually newly appointed under the new system) elders can bring someone under church discipline for ANY sin, and contesting the “underestimated” gospel is paramount to propagating false doctrine, the pesky member is disciplined and thereby neutralized as a threat to the authority of the elders. And, to discuss why the “sinner” is under discipline would be, but of course, gossip. The pesky member can now scream, squawk, or anything else they would like to do to no avail; their credibility is history. It’s the same old, worn out, five-step story being played out over and over again while rolling up the body count on the landscape of American Christianity.
This has been going on now for 42 years. The sharp increase in church discipline reported by the Wall Street Journal in 2008 is directly related to the New Calvinist movement which was launched by the Australian Forum think tank in 1970. It is a return to heavy handed Geneva style Reformed leadership—the days when Calvin had “heretics” burned and beheaded. Here in America, the scarlet letter of church discipline and lawsuits are the next best thing for those who dare contend against the “scandalous gospel.” Granted, many who contend against it don’t understand the theology per se, but have concerns about the results they see: control issues; fast changes without regard to the feelings of others; unbalanced preaching; and troublesome ideas like our total inability as believers to please God. That’s too close for comfort for most New Calvinist spiritual despots. This movement is also the primary supporter and catalyst for other movements like Quiver Full, Patriarchy, Vision Forum, SGM, Shepherding, etc. These movements comprise easily 90% of the spiritual abuse that takes place in American Christianity.
But yet again, even though it would seem like New Calvinists are on the ropes with the embarrassing revelation in the Beaverton situation concerning John MacArthur’s Grace Community Church, they win. Why? Because once again, symptoms are the issue, and not the movement’s doctrine/philosophy driving the behavior. Ronald Reagan knew how to get rid of a problem. He didn’t focus on the naughty behavior of communism—he sought to destroy the beast. And for certain, many bloggers don’t want to see the demise of New Calvinism for they would have nothing to write about anymore. In the same way, the National Inquirer dreads the idea that movie stars and politicians would start behaving.
This is a nasty philosophy: a play scripted with three primary characters; the enlightened totally depraved chosen by God to contain the total depraved peasantry until the day of apocalypse, and using the law and government for guardrails. Phil Johnson’s response to the Beaverton situation is beyond disingenuous. He knows grade A well that once a parishioner is excommunicated, they can be “treated like an unbeliever.” I can confidently say that his reference to the defendants as “believers” is not what he believes about them. With this doctrine, authority = truth which is why MacArthur will once again entertain with CJ Mahaney at this year’s Resolved Conference despite the fact that CJ has never repented of his criminal activity. Stuff happens in the messy business of controlling the totally depraved in order to present them to God as those who excepted the fact that Jesus has always obeyed for them (and any obedience on our part rejects the atonement). CJ’s behavior is unfortunate collateral damage in a war where the one in 99 is expendable for the Geneva commune. By the way, while New Calvinists pontificate about the virtues of separation of church and state, this ministry receives information regularly about their consorted effort to get in bed with the government, especially through the U.N.
I guess my only question is how high does the destroyed family body count have to get before people wake up?
As James Carville said in the four words that got Bill Clinton elected: “It’s the economy doctrine stupid.”
paul
LOL! John Piper Would Only Change “One Thing” About John Calvin
….and by the way, we are all totally depraved; so you know, stuff happens.
In this video, Piper forgets a lot of history about Calvin. Listen to the short clip, and then read the following excerpt from a church historian. Listen, I’m really busy today, but it’s ok, I know the smartness/intelligence of my readers; they are not going to take Piper’s word that ONE of the people Calvin had murdered taught false doctrine about the Trinity. Remember, New Calvinists believe that emphasizing the other two members of the Trinity as much as Jesus is misguided “emphasis” and therefore a false gospel (please don’t make me dig up the Michael Horton quote on that one).
In preparation for TTANC volume 2, I am studying the teachings of theologians who contended against Calvin in his day. Very interesting, seems that some of them had a problem with Calvin’s view of the relationship between sanctification and justification. Sound familiar?
Furthermore, Piper states that the melding of church and state didn’t serve the Puritan legacy well. Oh really? This ministry is inundated with information that I unfortunately don’t have time to pursue regarding consolidated attempts by the New Calvinist movement to get in bed with the government. Trust me, they would luuuuuuuvvvvvv to silence their critics through law enforcement—starting with bloggers. In fact, the present cases on this are not that hard to find: lawsuits; outrageous defamation of character; bogus church discipline; blackmail; coercion border-lining on outright kidnapping ; etc. On the last one, I know of an actual case right now and am working with the situation. The New Calvinist church is holding an individual hostage (in regard to remaining under their authority via church membership) because of what the person knows about the church. They “have something” on the individual and are using it to control them. Which by the way is a criminal act according to the state law where the church is located.
Piper is right about one thing: job one for the founding fathers of America was to make sure the church did not get back in bed with the government on this side of the pond. Particularly, churches of the Reformed type, which were barely less forgiving than Rome towards those who disagreed with them. Also like Rome, the Reformers were a little uncomfortable with the free reasoning of mankind in religious issues. Consider this soundbite from Martin Luther:
“Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets.”
—Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.
“Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but—more frequently than not—struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks in 1569.
“Heretics are not to be disputed with, but to be condemned unheard, and whilst they perish by fire, the faithful ought to pursue the evil to its source, and bathe their heads in the blood of the Catholic bishops, and of the Pope, who is the devil in disguise.”
—Martin Luther, Table Talks (as quoted in Religious History: An Inquiry by M. Searle Bates, p. 156).
In other words, Luther would not have thought much of the “NOBLE” Bereans. And again, Piper is right because the founding fathers of America were a product of the Enlightenment era. I’m thinkin’ they didn’t agree with Luther’s attitude toward free thought; unless of course, it was Reformed, and preferably Augustinain, a forefather of Gnosticism.
As the Institutes of the Christian Religion greatly influenced the theology of the Reformation, Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances greatly affected the structure of many Reformed churches and their relation to the community. One major element of the Ecclesiastical Ordinances was the Consistory, the central church governing apparatus, composed of ministers and elders. Its purpose was to maintain ecclesiastical discipline and theological orthodoxy, but when the social community of the city is identical to the church community, the result is that ecclesiastical discipline and religious heterodoxy have social implications. Very quickly church offenses become civil offenses or at least offenses with civil consequences, as the medieval Church came to see.
The Consistory oversaw the conduct of the believers-citizens of Geneva down to the minutest detail, intervening with disciplinary measures such as public rebuke and excommunication. But because the civil and the ecclesiastical authority were so closely intertwined, condemnation by the Consistory could lead to civil punishments such as public fines and even exile and execution. People were brought before the Consistory for every sort of offense, including petty ones such as singing jingles critical of Calvin, card playing, dancing, and laughing during a sermon. The Consistory also sent out members to each parish to look for transgressors, who, if discovered, were tried by the Consistory. Every household was visited annually, before Easter, to ascertain the status of prospective communicants. If Geneva was the “Rome of the Reformation,” the Consistory was its Inquisition and Calvin its Pope.
Geneva under Calvin’s influence controlled its citizens’ lives, including their private lives, well beyond what the medieval Church did. The individual Christian in the Church of Geneva was “free” to interpret the Bible for himself, provided he interpreted it exactly as Calvin did.
Was Calvin a “dictator”? Surely not in the conventional sense. He held no elected office, nor did he exercise direct political power in Geneva. He was mainly a pastor, not a politician. And yet we mustn’t go as far as some of Calvin’s supporters, who say he was “simply” a pastor. He possessed tremendous influence in the political community, well beyond that of a mere civic leader. And that influence translated directly into civil law strictures and punishments. Geneva was not an absolute State, in the modern sense, but neither was it a free state, except perhaps for those who already accepted its rigid norms of conduct.
A prime example of Calvin’s influence in Geneva is the case of Pierre Ameaux, a member of the city council, who had criticized Calvin as a preacher of false doctrine. The council told Ameaux to retract his statement, but Calvin wanted a harsher punishment. Ameaux was forced to go through town dressed only in a shirt, with a torch in hand.
Ameaux’ fate was a mere embarrassment; the embryonic freethinker Jacques Gruet was executed for criticizing Calvin, for blasphemy and for protesting the stringent demands of Calvin’s Geneva. He was tortured and beheaded. Calvin also got Jerome Bolsec banished for the Frenchman’s disagreement with Calvin regarding predestination, thus proving that, while Geneva was a haven for Protestants throughout Europe who agreed with Calvin, it could be oppressive for those who did not.
But the most celebrated case is that of Michael Sevetus, who didn’t get off as lightly as Bolsec. The Spanish physician-writer took it upon himself to reformulate the doctrine of the Trinity in what were essentially Gnostic categories. But Sevetus made the mistake of sending Calvin an advance copy, which led, by a rather Byzantine route, to Calvin tipping off the Catholic magistrates in Vienna that the heretical Sevetus was practicing medicine in their city. That brought the apparatus of the Inquisition down on him. Sevetus managed to escape and wound up, in all places, Geneva, en route to Naples. Calvin had him arrested, tried and sentenced to death. As an act of mercy, Calvin requested that Sevetus be beheaded, instead of burned, but in this case Calvin’s request was not honored (http://goo.gl/1Y1u5).
paul
R.I.P Presbyterian Church USA via ECO and Waiting to be Joined by the Southern Baptists
The late Dr. John “Jack” Miller must be smiling right now. His Sonship Theology which was born of the Australian Forum’s centrality of the objective gospel and transmitted in Presbyterian circles via Westminster Seminary is well on its way to finishing off what’s left of the PCUSA. When Sonship Theology started taking on heavy flack in 1999, its handlers changed the name to “Gospel Transformation.” The doctrine left the Forum in two directions: Reformed Baptist circles via New Covenant Theology, and Presbyterian circles via Jack Miller’s Sonship Theology.
The doctrine was pretty much snuffed out in Reformed circles where fiery Baptist pulpit pounders called it out for what it is: antinomianism. But in Presbyterian circles, “antinomian” seemed “extreme” and even “harsh.” Well, now that the doctrine is getting ready to completely consume the PCUSA, at least everybody will still be friends.
The doctrine was a born sectarian beast. A biblical sect is a group that divides using false doctrine. The movement, now known primarily as New Calvinism, never started its own congregations, but instead started groups and organizations for the sole purpose of orchestrating hostile takeovers of existing congregations. That’s what sects do. Ernest Reisinger left the Presbyterian Church circa 1980 to start Founders Ministries for the sole purpose of taking over the SBC with COGOUS (the centrality of the objective gospel outside of us).
The Bible makes it clear that there is only one way to stop a gangrenous sect: confrontation and separation, but the leaders of our day thought they could take a softer approach; such as, forums where everybody could get together and have “discussions” about such “disagreements” that the church has “struggled with for centuries.” There isn’t truth verses deadly false doctrine, just “disagreements.” A good example of this is Jesus’ letter to the eighth church where he told them to get together and discuss “disagreements.”
And by the way, the doctrine is sanctification by justification with Gnosticism as its “practical application.” No big deal; let’s talk. The sectarian arm of New Calvinism that is polishing off the PCUSA is the ECO, or Evangelical Covenant Order of the Presbyterian Church. They recently announced the following:
ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians says that 47 congregations are now in the process of leaving the Presbyterian Church (USA) and preparing to join the new denomination.
“This process is different in the context of each presbytery, but always involves careful discernment, discussion, prayer and several congregational meetings” according to an April 27 press release.
The release said that Trinity Presbyterian Church in Satellite Beach, Fla., with 877 members, was the first congregation to begin the process.
Some of the churches in the process of leaving the PCUSA and joining ECO that have either had their decisions publicized in newspaper articles or on public blogs include:
First Presbyterian Church, Colorado Springs, Colo., 4,108 members
First Presbyterian Church, Greenville, S.C., 3,508 members
Indian River Presbyterian Church, Fort Pierce, Fla., 631 members
First Presbyterian Church, Dunellen, N.J., 290 members
United Presbyterian Church, Canon City, Colo., 168 members
First Presbyterian Church, Miami Springs, Fla., 73 members
ECO’s release stated that “Other congregations will be voting in coming weeks. Yet another group of congregations is in the process of discernment with their sessions. After each congregation votes there still needs to be a vote to approve release by their presbytery.”
And by the way, the organization only opened its doors in January of 2012. This exact scenario is taking place in the SBC and any kind of intestinal fortitude to stop it is nowhere in sight.
I am no prophet, but the future is easy to call on this one: new denominations will be forming to offer an alternative to New Calvinism which has all but completely taken over the church. Historically, this is how denominations happen.
paul
Guest Blogger: Missionary Heather Ingram looks Back on Being Sent
“Here I am, Lord, send me!” are the words that mark a Christian servant. David and I both said these words when we were just barely teenagers. We experienced a turning point in our walk with the Lord and knew that someday we would be missionaries. When that day came we of course had our expectations and preconceived notions about what we would do and what our lives would look like when we landed in Puerto Rico October 2004. In 2005 God led us to begin New Day Christian Ministry. At first it was just one small church but now we have 46 churches around the world, 2 of them being in PR.
Although church planting is an important part of our ministry it is not the only thing on our plate. God has led us to do many things and meet many people along the way that might seem arbitrary and random to most people. Yet these encounters and activities have become an intercut part of our daily ministry. We have come to expect the unexpected when we wake up in the morning. We never know who we might meet at our local gas station or store, or what blessings may fall on us or what form of tragedy might happen.
This last month we have had an abundance of all 3. We have been abundantly blessed in different ways; we have met many people and been blessed by them and been able to be a blessing to them and their families; we have also experienced a mountain of heartache this month. I would like to briefly share a few examples of each:
When we returned from Kenya we hit the ground running with plans to begin our second PR church branch. We have been blessed with the opportunity to share a church building with Hormigueros Baptist Church. The last few weeks we have traveled there many times preparing the building. This last Sunday was our first service. We have a lot of work ahead of us and we are very excited at the incredible blessing of starting another branch and being able to meet in a church building. We eagerly wait to see how God will grow this church.
As we have been preparing for this church start, we faced a significant transportation challenge. Because of the distance needed to travel back and forth for this church start we needed to make sure our vehicle was in working order. We took it in for an inspection at our local auto shop and upon receiving an estimate for repairs we were very disappointed. The estimate was over $1500 to repair the breaks and front suspension. When we shared this with our friend, who is a certified mechanic, he quickly offered to help us do any repairs if we bought the parts. We eagerly accepted and bought what we thought were the necessary parts recommended to us by the auto shop. However, when David and our friend began disassembling the van they quickly realized several things were missing and several things that supposedly needed replaced were in good condition. David went back a few times to the auto shop and returned parts and exchanged them for different ones. Our friend also showed us that metal was showing through on our front tires. After replacing the breaks, front suspension and two new tires we spent only $500. Praise the Lord for this incredible blessing. We are so thankful to our friend for his immense help!
While we were preparing for our new church and also fixing the van we received word that a friend was in the ICU. Seven years ago when we started NDCM we needed a post office box. Harry, a postal worker for over 20 years, helped us open one. Through the years we shared stories of our families and different mile stones in our lives. When we became pregnant we excitedly shared pictures and when Hannah was born we brought her in to meet Harry and the rest of our postal friends. Every time we went away on mission trips to Kenya or on furlough to the States he not only personally took care of our mail but he served us and our ministry in a unique and important way. Three weeks ago he was admitted into the ICU for double pneumonia and a few days later died of a heart attack. David was honored to be asked by the family to perform a service and conduct the spreading of his ashes.
Not more than a day after Harry’s service we received a text from one of David’s closest friends in the States that his mother-in-law had been rushed to the hospital with a brain aneurysm. Sadly she passed away the next morning. We had enjoyed several family get-togethers with his in-laws and had hoped to get to know her better. With so much tragedy in such a short time we were hopeful that the worst had passed. Unfortunately this was not to be.
As many of our friends know almost a year ago our close friend here in PR, Javier, was killed. Five years ago we met Javier at a gas station. David was speaking English and that intrigued Javier enough to approach us and talk for a few minutes. We exchanged contact info and went our separate ways. Five minutes after separating he called and asked for prayer for some of his friends. This encounter led to meeting his family members, sharing holidays/birthdays and many visits to each other’s homes. On June 4, 2011 upon arriving at his house to show him our new puppy we learned that just a few short minutes before he had been shot and killed. His brother was an eye witness and identified the shooter which led to an arrest. The unexpectedness of his death and having him so violently taken from this earth and the closeness we had with him has left a void in our lives here in PR. This whole year we have been in and out of court, every time reliving the tragedy and pain. This past week a verdict of not guilty was issued and our expectations for a legally just ending was cruelly taken away from us by a corrupt judicial system.
Literally on the same day that this verdict was given we left the court house to go and be with our friend Nelson and his family for the viewing of his brother. Five years ago through a mutual friend we met this young Deaf man, Nelson. He began attending our church along with his hearing sister’s. We also began to get to know his other family members. We have gotten to know his family through the years. Nelson is the only Deaf member in his family. He has grown so much in the Lord that he is now the Deaf leader for our Juana Diaz branch. One week ago to this day Nelsons older brother was shot and killed. Family members flew in, arrangements were made and David and I stayed with Nelson to be his voice during the viewing and funeral. It was so heartbreaking to interpret for Nelson at the gravesite as he said words of love to his deceased brother and fellow family members.
In the midst of this tragedy, like those before, our families have come together. We have formed new friendships and older friendships have been strengthened.
When a Christian says, “Here I am, Lord, send me” there is no way to prepare someone for the unexpected life of servant hood. Ministry comes in all shapes and sizes and we must be ready in season and out of season. I have found that in order to be ready to pour out the love of God to those I surround myself with, I must first have my cup filled with the things of the Lord.
Being a missionary comes with many preconceived ideas of a scheduled and neat life of church on the weekends and leading people to salvation in Christ. If that were the case I am almost positive there would be many more missionaries out in the field. Christ didn’t call his disciples to a neat and scheduled life of preaching. He called them to GO and MAKE disciples. That task of “going” and “making” are no way neat and scheduled. In order to “go” and “make” it requires surrendering all, not just possessions, but your own expectations, ideas, pride, comfort and having a balanced budget every month! It requires getting ones hands shoulder deep in the work of the ministry; sometimes you are blessed beyond belief by God unexpectedly in different ways by different people, sometimes God leads you into someone’s life unexpectedly and you never know why until an opportunity (or maybe many opportunities) presents itself for you to be a blessing or be blessed.
“Here I am, Lord, send me” doesn’t come with a rule book or a schedule book. These words must come from a place that is ready every day for the unexpected activity of serving others in unimaginable ways.
Death to Mommy Perfection?
Yet another book from the enlightened Christian class for us totally depraved zombie sheep. What’s the difference between a pope interpreting the Bible for us verses a steady diet of books from the enlightened class? None: the way of the noble Berean is fading fast. The newest is Amy Spiegel’s Letting Go of Perfection. Snippets from the Christianity Today review will give you the gist:
Why author Amy Spiegel wants us to let go of perfection, whatever that is, in favor of Providence.
As Christian women, have we set the bar too high for ourselves? Are we striving to achieve our own version of the American dream, some sort of Focus on the Family all-star clan where the kids all love each other, while also reading above grade level and excelling in at least two extracurricular activities?
This is an easy post. Would you hire a contractor to build your house who wrote a book entitled, “Letting Go of Perfection”? Imagine finding out a few minutes before being wheeled into surgery that your surgeon wrote a book entitled, “Letting Go of Perfection.” Yikes! As a former contractor who framed houses we knew the framing was not going to be absolutely perfect, but was that our goal? Of course it was, and much to the delight of the client.
It can all be summed up by the beloved apostle regarding the enlightened spiritual class of our day: “Claiming to be wise, they became fools.” Ya, do that: teach the ones that are raising the future leaders, surgeons, and builders of our day that perfection shouldn’t be our goal. Brilliant. Ya, hurry and buy that book as quickly as you can.
These same brainiacs interpret things that Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount this way:
Jesus told us to be perfect like God so that we would go and try to be perfect, and then discover that it’s not possible—leading to us crying out, “I can’t do it! I can’t do it! Someone must do it for me!” [ie., Jesus].
No, Jesus warned us to not “relax” the standard of the law; in fact, the least of any commandment contained therein. And whoever does so will be least in the kingdom of heaven. We are not justified by keeping the law, but the new birth does not produce a relaxed attitude towards its standards of love, equity, and justice. That is why Jesus said that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. They actually revised the law of God with their own traditions in an attempt to make it easier to keep. That’s what you have to do when you think sanctification maintains justification (like John Piper et al). The Pharisees revised it with tradition, the New Calvinists do away with it altogether by teaching that Jesus keeps it for us.
Popes and books from the enlightened ones (like antinomian Elyse Fitzpatrick), Pharisees and New Calvinists—all the same difference.
paul
John Doe Can Do All Things Through the God That Strengthens
There is no grater joy for me than seizing the opportunity to encourage others. A brother I will refer to as “John Doe” sent me the following message which I will reply to in this post, and with permission. First, the email:
Hey Paul.
I know you don’t know me, but I’ve posted several times on your blog. I’ve got a problem–actually, probably a few intertwined problems. My chief problem, the one that’s bothering me the most, is loneliness. I’m [thirty something] years old and single. I have a lot of friends, but the trouble is most of them aren’t Christians. A lot of these guys/girls I’ve been friends with for years, since I was a kid, and I’ve always enjoyed their company. I know them well, I know their families, and I love them dearly. But it has been becoming more and more apparent to me throughout the past year or so how very different our values are and how differently we look at life. The whole bar scene has grown cold on me. That’s where we’ve always gone to hang out. It never used to bother me, but now it’s starting to sicken me. I’m realizing that I really have very little in common with these people save for in a superficial way: I can talk to them about the ball game, or a song that we both like, or crack some jokes with them, but that’s about it. I’m getting so fed up with it all…. But the trouble is, I really don’t know what else to do. The life I’ve built for myself (stupidly, I now realize) does not involve many Christians. When I do try to talk to my friends about Jesus they don’t want to hear it, and it commonly ends in an argument.
I’m also finding an increasing desire to get married, but I don’t know any available Christian women. I’m actually afraid to look for one cause I’m not sure I have what it takes to be a good Christian husband. I feel like I have so much work to do, and I hardly know where to begin. Deep down I know that I should leave my old friends and get involved with other Christians, but I feel so bad about doing that… Not only would I feel extremely lonely, but I know I would hurt them also. I hardly know where to begin there, either. It’d be almost like building my life again from scratch. Is that what I should do? I don’t like where I am, but I’m scared to change. I HATE admitting that, but that’s where I’m at right now…
I know that you have biblical answers that you can give me, that’s why I’m writing you. I want to change the way I live, but it seems so hard and I need biblically-grounded counseling/encouragement… Any help you could give along those lines would be very appreciated!
Thanks Paul,
John Doe
John,
I have good news for you: you can do something about your problems, and God will help you. He won’t do it for you, but He will tell you what to do and strengthen you accordingly. “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13).
I say “problems,” but in your case, I am not sure I want to look at them that way. The fact that you see them as such is actually very positive. Your changed heart is running contrary to some spiritual wisdom issues. This is all very good news, and the bigger the problem, the more opportunity to show how big our God is.
You will need to be patient and start with one bite at a time; by and by, the whole elephant will be devoured. And you must not underestimate the influence of sin that resides in our flesh while remembering that we have the same power that raised Christ from the grave (Eph. 1:15-20). The first half of Ephesians is our resources in Christ; the second half of Ephesians is our part. But the pivotal truth is Ephesians 4:17-24: we are to put off the old man (and remember that the flesh’s ability to enslave us to sin is broken), and put on the new man in Christ. We have been gifted the resources, but it is up to us to put off and put on. All of the truth concerning this is many faceted and will be experienced in many different ways—there is much to learn about being a disciple of Christ from the Scriptures. Ephesians with this outline in mind is a good place to start.
God doesn’t dwell on our past sins. Ask for forgiveness and move on to what God really cares most about: CHANGE. When your goal is change for God’s glory (salt and light), He is totally on board and completely on your side. Don’t dwell on your failures because that is not dwelling on truth—look at yourself according to the whole picture. Failure is rarely the sum of any person.
God uses emotions to help us. Fear, sorry, joy, sense of accomplishment, etc. are all from God and can be used for positive ends. These can also get out of hand and become negative forces in our life. I insert this thought because many leaders in our day seek to abolish our self-confidence. Self-confidence is extremely important. We like it when our surgeons possess it, no? Like all emotions, self-confidence is very important and must be put to work biblically while keeping it in its proper perspective.
As Jay Adams rightly asserts (http://wp.me/pmd7S-mA), marriage is a covenant to solve the problem of loneliness. I recommend Christian Mingle.com , it is a great system, and that is how I scored big in finding Susan. My Christian friends had access to my account and gave me advice accordingly (and had a blast doing it!).
I know, brutally practical. Get married. I’m giving you 6 months to get it done.
No doubt, marriage is a big responsibility, but remember, “I can do ALL things through Him….” Not only that, Jay Adams also makes the biblical case that if singleness is a gift, then marriage must be a gift as well. I can’t remember if I get into that in the cited post, but he makes an excellent biblical case for it. So, God will help you, plus it is your gift—what are you waiting for?
You see loneliness as your biggest problem, but in our day, I see quality Christian fellowship/leadership as your greatest nemesis. It is fine to have unbelieving friends barring any compromise and a diminished focus on the primary purpose, but fellowship with those who are sold out for truth in our day is really tuff territory as the apostles predicted it would be. The right wife is a good start; primarily, look for a mentality that is persuaded by the truth of God’s word. If you detect any indifference to the authority of God’s word—bail. Your marriage will stand or fall on having the same mind in Christ. But be encouraged, most of the people who contact this blog that are impressive from a discernment perspective are women. They also tend to be more indignant toward a fear of man posture.
Where to start? Ratchet back from hanging out with lost friends and invest in looking for a wife. The dating process will supply Christian fellowship and open up opportunities to meet other Christians. The great thing about Christian Mingle.com is that the first date can be meeting her at her church for services. Who knows, you could score a wife and a decent church both. On the rest, remember our Ephesians discussion, and that different areas of our life are not isolated. When we strengthen one area, it helps others.
That’s enough for now, go with God’s promises,
paul
Open Letter from “Friend” Challenges PPT’s Tone
I love working from other people’s framework of thought to write articles because the outline is usually the most difficult to develop. The following comment (for all practical purposes an open letter) offers an opportunity for this sanctified laziness, and some long overdue clarification. First, the comment:
Paul,
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous. I can also make sense of your indignation with regard to your excommunication from Clearcreek Chapel, which you believe to be unjust. These are sensitive and provocative issues that naturally lend themselves to strong emotions. What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
If not–if you cannot deny that at the very least, the membership and leadership of Clearcreek Chapel PROCLAIM to believe in the gospel of Christ–then I must urge you to be mindful of the manner in which you discuss the men and women who so profess. Even if the leadership at that church has wronged you in the way they administered discipline, it is not your place to seek vengeance through the use of this blog. I anticipate that you will cite a desire to protect fellow believers from doctrinal error as a primary reason for your writing, and it may be so. Only God knows the heart. But whether that is your intention or not, I would strongly encourage you to transform the purpose of your blog from one of accusation and refutation to one of Spirit-enabled, Christ-centered, God-glorifying, constructive writing that seeks to edify others in all that it proclaims. Such an endeavor would leave little room for the derision that seems to characterize many of your posts.
As I said, perhaps you are entirely correct in your assessment of your dealings with the elders of Clearcreek Chapel. Let us assume that you are. Even still, because it is a church of professing believers, I urge you to remember that, as I’m sure you know, Ephesians calls us to practice “humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Eph. 4)
Even among our enemies, this exhortation applies. I pray that the Spirit may persuade you to set aside grievances and instead to “bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them”, “live in harmony with one another”, “never avenge yourself, but leave it to the wrath of God”, and, “if it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.” (Rom. 12)
Please consider my encouragement.
Peace of God be with you.
A Friend
Let me take these well-organized/stated thoughts and reply to them:
I understand your frustration with New Calvinist theology, which you believe to be fundamentally erroneous.
Actually, New Calvinism is more than “fundamentally erroneous.” It is a false gospel that fuses justification and sanctification together making sanctification a virtual minefield for Christians to walk through on the way to a supposed judgment to determine a righteous standing. In sermons on “the golden chain of salvation,” John Piper speaks of participating in the “links” in just the right way. If we don’t, we are “making sanctification the ground of our justification.” Um, this is clearly works salvation by what New Calvinists would call “justification by faith alone.” But keep in mind, it is really sanctification by faith alone. And in essence, works salvation by faith alone because the two are fused. Their formula makes faith alone a WORK that maintains our justification—this is what makes it so deceptive, but deadly in every way.
The pastor of Clearcreek Chapel has said: “A separation of Justification and sanctification is an abomination.” What is an “abomination” is the New Calvinist formula that identifies certain things as works and non-works for use in sanctification, as if faith/belief is not human activity. When justification and sanctification are fused together, everything we do in sanctification relates back to our justification, making it works. In essence, we are maintaining our just standing by NOT making this, that, or the other a “ground for our justification.” This is a very clever false gospel. In fact, so clever, I must surmise that it was hatched from the pit of hell itself.
What I do not understand is the vindictive nature of your blog. Keeping in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice, can you honestly say that you doubt the very salvation (that is, the basic belief in the atonement of Christ) of this particular church’s members and elders?
No, and I say again, “no,” we should not “keep in mind that there is always going to be a wide range of disagreement, even among genuine believers, about matters of doctrine and practice…” What we need to keep in mind is the fact that such “wide range of disagreement” is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. This plays into the New Calvinist Emphasis hermeneutic. Many things are true, but the only thing that brings about meaningful results is what you “emphasize,” ie., the gospel. This is Platonist to the core. All other realities are shadows of the truth and inferior to the gospel, which as Clearcreek elder Chad Bresson has said: “is the measure of all reality.” Let me repeat that; the gospel is the “measure of ALL REALITY.” Add to that the following: Paul Washer has said that the gospel is a deeper knowledge that cannot be fully known, and never will be. New Calvinists have made themselves the gatekeepers of the higher knowledge—the only “objective truth completely outside of us.” This is Gnosticism on steroids.
Unity, I repeat, unity, ONLY comes from having the “one mind,” and that being the one mind of Christ, our Savior and Lord. A “wide range” of disagreement is to be avoided like the Bubonic Plague. Christ said to make disciples by observing “all that I have commanded.” If making disciples is only through the gospel, I am sure our Lord could have made that point. In fact, observe in the Gospels how often Christ talks about His own walk to the cross as compared to other subjects. The New Calvinists know this, which is why John Piper states that the only theme of a narrative is determined by its ending. Oh really? What a lame assertion in an attempt to make every verse in the Gospels about justification!
In regard to your next point, I strongly suspect that New Calvinist leaders are unregenerate false teachers. I believe John Piper is the premier false teacher of this day, with many following. And I have no reason to believe that the Clearcreek elders are regenerate, but have much reason to believe otherwise. I believe that Clearcreek parishioners who follow them (while not making any definitive judgment) should be treated “like” unbelievers. The whole Clearcreek assembly was confronted according to Matthew 18, but they continue to refuse to seek my forgiveness for a litany of gross sin against my family. Not owning sin is the mark of an unbeliever. For instance, they stand behind the Clearcreek elders in their written statement that is full of outrageous/untrue statements about me. This document was used to counsel my wife to divorce me. But yet, a copy of the document obtained by me includes my former wife’s copious notes which at various places clearly contradicts the accusations made by the elders.
Note in the below jpeg of the document that her copious notes contradict the most serious accusation: that I was not supplying for the basic needs of my family for a three-year period. She corrects that accusation by saying that we were not increasing our savings, or reducing debt (company debt that had nothing to do with personal debt), and that she had to help at times (from part-time cleaning jobs as she did an excellent job running our household full-time for 20 years). Furthermore, for any Clearcreek parishioner who has the guts to look at the evidence, I can supply financial records pertaining to the same three-year period that clearly shows the following: $700.00 dollars a week was direct deposited into Shirley’s personal checking account weekly by my company. This also included 100% medical coverage, and the company supplying all of my automobile and living expenses while I was traveling on company business (which was pretty much most of the time). In fact, as court documents show, Clearcreek’s attorney tried to contend against a motion made by my attorney to cancel alimony payments by claiming that I made $100,000.00 dollars in 2005.
I am not arguing that I was sinless, or that my family never struggled financially; I am arguing that a formal document giving my wife the green light to divorce me should be the epitome of truth in every word, and if it isn’t, they should be as big as the gospel they confess and make that right. They should at least confess indisputable sloppiness in this grave matter, not withstanding the casual mention of “misreading records” in the matter of my excommunication. A “misreading” attended by two elders who were supposedly counseling me!
Furthermore, the elders propagated the false accusation that I abandoned my family and moved to Fort Wayne Indiana while continually refusing to put the accusation in writing. This outrageous accusation was then furthered by many Clearcreek Parishioners such as Veronica Gelvin. Moreover, none of their accusations were repeated by my wife in her testimony before the guardian ad litem ordered by my attorney. Massive documentation that has been complied and archived reveals their accusations to be patently false. The refusal to repent of these outrageous sins committed against my family clearly reveals the utterly black heart of the Clearcreek assembly.
The Clearcreek elders and their following assembly pose a grave threat to God’s people. I have a duty to warn others with all zeal. In the future when it fits into my list of priories (and Lord willing), each and every Clearcreek parishioner will be entered into the Matthew 18 process, and if they do not repent, I will tell it to the church, and I will name names Publication1. I do not believe that Clearcreek parishioners bear the right to hide behind their vile leaders (each will be presented with this document).
Clearcreek is indicative of a huge problem that is growing in today’s church: the return back to Calvin’s Authority = Truth paradigm, and his heavy handed Geneva style leadership. Folks better wise up; the election/free will debate is not the major issue: spiritual tyranny and the philosophy/doctrine that drives it is the major issue. Whether the Southwood story, ABWE story, or my story, cries for justice fall on deaf ears Grace Partners 2. But yet our God is a God of justice. He warns us to take up the cause of those who are trodden down by oppressors. Until Clearcreek offers the slightest whimper of regret for the deep pain they have unrightfully inflicted on many people—here I stand, and I will not relent as long as the lover of our souls gives me breath. To Him be all glory, and I confess that I love Him with all of my heart. And thank you my dear friend for your concern, I pray that God will abundantly bless you.
And to you who stand silent and fellowship with Clearcreek as though they are innocent: shame on you. Shame.
paul
My “Never, Never” Advice
1. Never, never contend with elders in a Reformed church concerning doctrine because:
A. To them, Authority = Truth so you are totally wasting your time.
B. If things go south, other pastors, and other churches will not help you. I repeat: they
will not help you because:
a. Authority = Truth.
2. Never, never agree to any kind of counseling in a Reformed church because:
A. Change is NOT the goal, because:
a. you can’t change the totally depraved.
B. There must be some other goal that couldn’t be good such as:
a. getting dirt on you for future use.
3. Never, never underestimate what totally depraved leaders will do to totally depraved
subjects because:
A. When everybody is totally depraved, stuff happens.
B. You deserve it because you are totally depraved, and:
a. who can dish it out better than the totally depraved?
paul
TANC Online Newsletter: May 2012
TANC Online Newsletter: April 2012
TANC Online Newsletter: March 2012
Laugh All You Want To: There is a Conspiracy to Take Over the SBC
Folks around the Southern Baptist Convention can laugh all they want to about sarcastic comments regarding a planned takeover by “aggressive Calvinists,” but that is exactly what’s going on. And by the way, it’s documented. Moreover, election verses freewill is not the issue, a faulty interpretation of justification is the issue. The following pdf link is an addendum to the book, “The Truth About New Calvinism: It’s History, Doctrine, and Character.”
The Truth About New Calvinism pdf: pages 147-161: TANC Addendum
paul
Gospel-Centered Preaching Verses Jesus’ Learning and Doing
It couldn’t be clearer, after all, we can assume Christ is the master communicator. He created us; obviously, He knows how to communicate with us. If you really want to know God’s intentions for communicating to His people, it can be observed in the Sermon on the Mount.
Christ didn’t preach that sermon at some institution of higher religious learning; He preached it to the blue collar class of that day on a hill in the countryside. The key hermeneutic, or how Jesus expected the crowd to hear His sermon is in Matthew 5: 2; “And he opened his mouth and taught them, saying….” It can be said of the particular verb here “taught” (didasko) that it means, “to cause learning.” To suggest that this crowd was already up to speed on a redemptive historical hermeneutic is of course preposterous.
New Calvinists point to the writings of Paul and the road to Emmaus in an attempt to establish this, but somehow, Jesus didn’t think this crowd needed to get that memo. It is also clear that the term “gospel,” or simply “good news,” can include more than contemplating the works of Christ and what he accomplished (hence, when Paul said he wanted to preach the gospel at Rome [supposedly speaking strictly of believers], many things are implied). Just prior to Matthew 5:1, we read this in Matthew 4:23;
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people.
The Sermon on the Mount is the prime example of what that message was exactly, and by the way, doesn’t include the gospel of His death, burial, and resurrection. Jesus preached another gospel in addition to that one: if you do what I say, your house will be built on a rock. That’s good news, no? The Sermon on the Mount is instruction on kingdom living from beginning to end. It is a sermon about discarding bad information and replacing it with God’s wisdom, for “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God,” which by the way includes the law. Jesus stated the following in His summation of the Sermon on the Mount:
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
And what was the gospel that Jesus was preaching prior to the Sermon on the Mount?
From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew 4:17).
Nothing is possible without God. Obviously. Even the unbeliever depends on God for everything whether he knows it or not. But the Bible reveals a character trait of God: He desires that His creatures colabor with him. Sometimes simplicity is utterly profound because of familiarity. While attending a K-12 school seminar with my son Phillip, an instructor that didn’t even seem to be a Christian said the following while holding out her hands as an illustration: “We were created to work.” No kidding? Look at our bodies. They are designed for work. But it makes one wonder what we would look like according to many of the Reformed theologies propagated in our day. Think of a legless and armless SpongeBob. Let’s use our brains here; is there really any danger of God not getting all the glory when he is the one who powers the atoms that hold matter together? As long as we know that, there is no danger of stealing God’s glory by using the brain, hands, and feet that He has given us. Jesus’ very mandate to the church is:
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20).
For sure, we are saved by faith alone, but unless we exercise that faith, we will not have a house built on a rock, and the message of gospel life will not be displayed to others. To not exercise our will according to our faith is to hide the light of the gospel:
You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:14-16).
We often like to say that “Jesus is the light of the world.” And though that is true, the following is also true; that is not what Jesus is saying here; He is saying that YOU are the light of the world. “But Paul, the Apostle Paul said that God gives us the will to do what is His good pleasure” (Philippians 2:13). So, it’s a gift, right? When you have been given a gift, it’s yours to use, right? This isn’t a call to let God do it all for fear that we will rob Him of His glory, this is telling us we have no excuse! “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” (Philippians 4:13). “I CAN DO….” I like the Jay Adams adage often used by biblical counselors that are of his school of thought when told by a counselee that they “can’t” do something that God wants them to do: “You can’t, or you won’t?” No doubt, the just live by faith; you have to believe that God has really given you everything you need to obey Him, but let there be no doubt, kingdom living is not by faith alone.
A life built on a rock is by faith and doing (Matthew 7:24), shows forth the gospel (Matthew 5:14-18), results in happiness (James 1:25, Luke 11: 27,28), and gives assurance of salvation (1John 3:17, 2Peter 1:10). Bottom line: faith is a gift (Ephesians 2:8), but that faith cannot be shown to ourselves and others unless a decision is made to mix that faith with an exercise of the will according to God’s word (James 2:26). When Christ fed the 5,000, He didn’t do everything. The feeding was not possible without the Lord, no meal is, not even the ones that feed unbelievers, but the disciples helped. They instructed the crowd to sit, they distributed the food, and cleaned up afterwards. Did the Lord need their help? No. Did He want their help? Yes. This isn’t really rocket science. God has designed salvation and kingdom living for our participation while preserving all of the glory for Himself. To colabor with His creation is one of His attributes. The fact that Adam did not create the world is a no-brainer, but God’s desire to involve him in the maintenance thereof is rather obvious.
And let’s talk about this whole fear of putting to work what God has given us because of some misunderstanding about who He is. In the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30), Jesus tells of a Master who goes away on a journey and entrusts his various servants with his property, and this is interesting, “according to their ability.” So, each servant is entrusted with a sum of the master’s property in proportion to what he is able to bear. In other words, the master is fair and doesn’t expect too much. Note: the servants could not do anything without that which is granted by the master.
You know the rest of the story; the servants that received the five and two talents produced double what they were originally given responsibility of. Apparently, the masters business was one of investment, and the servants that had received the five and two talents began trading soon after the master left for his journey. But because of fear, the servant of whom the least was expected played it safe and made sure he didn’t lose any of the master’s money in risky investments. The goal was not to lose anything, so he buried the one talent and gave it back to the master when he returned.
This is eerily similar to what I hear from New Calvinists. They seem to fear that doing the wrong thing in sanctification could cause them to lose their salvation or whatever it is that they perceive the Lord has given them. A young New Calvinist told me in no uncertain terms that she was certain that the Lord wouldn’t fault her at the judgment for not trying too hard so that He would get all of the glory. By not trying too hard, she was playing it safe. Making little effort in sanctification or not doing anything “in her OWN strength” is supposedly erring on the side of caution. But wait a minute. To begin with, Christians will not stand at a future judgment to determine their justification by what they have done in sanctification/kingdom living.
Christians don’t have to play it safe, they can live the kingdom life full throttle, and whatever the Lord has granted them according to talent will come to bear on what happens. But the Lord called the servant who had been given the one talent, “lazy.” He should have at least done the minimum. If he had deposited the money in a savings account, it would have at least gained a little interest. The fear that he couldn’t measure up to God’s harsh expectations was just an excuse for laziness, and a misrepresentation of who God is. One might also note that the master said to the other two servants who had worked hard at investing his talents, “Well DONE faithful servant.” Obviously, the servant did something and was even rewarded for it. And the purpose of this parable seems to be a motivation for us as well.
Moreover, the proof is in the pudding. On a website that promotes a gospel perspective on every verse of Scripture, an article was posted concerning a “gospel-centered” perspective on Matthew 18:15-20. The author states the following:
If there is one thing my students might get weary of hearing me say, it is this: “You have not rightly handled or interpreted a text unless ultimately you can clearly identify its relationship to the Gospel.”
As an aside, it is amazing how this approach to interpretation is blatant Gnosticism. How can one see the larger scope of the gospel in every verse of the Bible? The author further explains:
Every text has two contexts in which it must be interpreted, namely, its micro (i.e. the immediate context) and macro contexts (i.e. the larger context of the particular book and of Scripture as a whole). It is not enough merely to interpret a text in its relationship to its micro-context. As important as it is to understand a text in its immediate context, to do so does not mean that you have identified its relationship to the Gospel, that is, its relationship to what God has done in Christ to accomplish salvation. The failure to understand a text in its macro or redemptive-context is tantamount to the failure of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus to understand that the entire OT testifies to Christ in his suffering and subsequent glory (Luke 24:21).
The dualist method of interpreting the cosmos through the macro/micro is a Gnostic concept that came from Platonism:
Macrocosm and microcosm is an ancient Greek Neo-Platonic schema of seeing the same patterns reproduced in all levels of the cosmos, from the largest scale (macrocosm or universe-level) all the way down to the smallest scale (microcosm or sub-sub-atomic or even metaphysical-level). In the system the mid-point is Man, who summarizes the cosmos.
The Greeks were philosophically concerned with a rational explanation of everything and saw the repetition of the golden ratio throughout the world and all levels of reality as a step towards this unifying theory. In short, it is the recognition that the same traits appear in entities of many different sizes, from one man to the entire human population.
Macrocosm/microcosm is a Greek compound of μακρο- “Macro-” and μικρο- “Micro-”, which are Greek respectively for “large” and “small”, and the word κόσμος kósmos which means “order” as well as “world” or “ordered world.”
Today, the concept of microcosm has been dominated by sociology to mean a small group of individuals whose behavior is typical of a larger social body encompassing it. A microcosm can be seen as a special kind of epitome. Conversely, a macrocosm is a social body made of smaller compounds (Online source: http://goo.gl/7m4Ds).
In this approach, the person is only excommunicated as a way to show forth the gospel in the text. Getting the person to see the gospel context will transform him/her. Hence, when confronted by others, they are only to remind him/her of how church discipline shows forth the gospel. The author explains:
Question Three: What must we do with the individual who has been expelled in order that we might see him restored?
Answer: Keep lovingly facing him (1) with what it means to be cut off from the community of faith, namely, you are cut off from the presence of God; and (2) with what Christ has done in his place that he might be restored. The cross is the one place where both of these truths are seen most clearly. Why must we bring this two-fold message of the cross to bear upon the expelled individual? (1) That he might be awakened to the sinfulness of his sin and its terrible consequences. (2) Because it is this very message of what Christ has done in his place that is the very power of God unto his restoration. (Online source: http://goo.gl/nm8uv).
Therefore, instruction from the Bible regarding the specifics for kingdom living is not the focused use of the Bible, regardless of what passages like 2Timothy 3:16,17 state:
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
I have a good example of how God honors obedience and attention to His word with displays of power. My son in law is a missionary in Puerto Rico but he oversees church plants in Kenya. He recently returned from there after leading several Bible conferences. After he returned home, he received the following letter from a pastor who attended one of the conferences:
Greeting in the great name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I thank God so much for this New day that He has given unto me and all of us. I thank Him and give Him all the glory
I also want to thank God for the conference. It was powerful. I was so much blessed especially by the message about the Christian Liberty. Just as I said when we were in Kisii that I learned a lot from you brother David the message blessed me so much that when I reached Mombasa first Sunday after conference I shared this message with my church members and people were so amazed. This is powerful message after the service people wanted to know more and to learn. We decided to start a follow up to go and visit those who were out of our church because we chased them away.
We thank God we restored many of them back to Christ and now there is a lot of Joy in the house of God. The Bible says you will know the truth and the truth will set you free, we were set free by the truth that you brought us in that conference . May Almighty God Bless you so Much. ~Sammy Mayienga ~ N.D.C.M Shanzu Mombasa
Indeed, no wonder the great commission is a charge by Christ to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that He has commanded. God’s power is in the doing. He desires obedience more than sacrifice, and the blessing is IN the doing, not contemplationism that does not mix doing with faith.
paul
I See “Lord and Savior,” But Where is “Personhood”?
“So, if we don’t use the Bible as instruction for applying deadly words to our life, but instead use it to discover what Jesus’ favorite color is, we are transformed into His image from “glory to glory.” The former is living by do’s and don’ts, so don’t do that, do the latter.”
You hear it every hour of the day if you are a Christian that partakes in Christianized venues of Twitter, Facebook, radio, and especially church. I don’t like to type, so let me run over to Twitter and get it via copy and paste, I will be right back.
Ok, I’m back, here is one of the versions:
Knowing God does not come through a program or a method. It is a relationship with a Person.
Sounds spiritual, doesn’t it? Yes, as Christians, we want to partake in more spiritual endeavors than things like, say, biblical instruction. Yes, biblical instructions by the Lord are a “method,” “a step by step program,” and other things that reek of cold, hard, tablets of stone. After all, we don’t want to live by don’ts. Christ is not a precept, He’s a person. He’s not a formula, He’s a Father. Well, you get the picture.
But what does it mean? Just grab your Bible, flip it open, and put your finger anywhere on the page and read; it’s probably going to be about God telling us to think a certain way, love in a certain way, act in a certain way, or illustrate what happens when people don’t. So where are all of the verses regarding this Jesus as person motif as if that’s not a no-brainer to begin with? Notice the strong either/or prism that suggests the following equation: seeing imperatives in the Bible = you’re so stupid that you don’t know Christ is a person. Right. Supposedly, here is what the Great Commission really states:
Go to all of the ends of the earth and make disciples, teaching them to observe my personhood.
So what does it mean to know that Jesus is a person? Let me give you the thumbnail version. This truism was propagated by New Calvinists and their Gnostic approach to sanctification. Matter is evil; spirit is good. Or as they state it specifically, “The letter kills (law written on things made up of molecules), but the spirit gives life.” So, if we don’t use the Bible as instruction for applying deadly words to our life, but instead use it to discover what Jesus’ favorite color is, we are transformed into His image from “glory to glory.” The former is living by do’s and don’ts, so don’t do that, do the latter.
The bottom line is the following: opting for a subjective personhood of Christ rather than focusing on what Jesus says is sanctified idol worship. Let me illustrate. Here in Ohio, just outside of Dayton, there is a Charismatic church that built a 60 foot tall statue of Jesus along Interstate 75. Recently, it was struck by lightning at night and the flames could be seen for miles in a spectacular apocalyptic-like demise. According to interviews conducted by the local press in regard to that event, it was discovered that the image meant many different things to many different people.
That’s the subjectivism problem with idols, and without a doubt why God doesn’t want any made, whether of things in heaven or Earth. They are subjective and everybody comes up with their own truth. It’s the same with using the Bible to gain a supposed deeper and deeper knowledge of Jesus’ personhood rather than reading to ascertain what He would have us think, say, and do. I have to wonder if this issue isn’t the crux of Jesus correcting the woman in Luke 11 who proclaimed His mother blessed because she had given birth to Him. Jesus made the sharp point that blessings don’t come from merely being closely related to Him, but by doing what He says.
paul
The Doctrine of New Calvinism is Gospel Sanctification
Sanctification is a critical issue. We will run the race well or we won’t and it matters to God (Acts 20:24, 1Cor 9:24, Gal 2:2, Gal 5:7, 2Tim 4:7, Heb 12:1). He saved us for the purpose of running the race of sanctification to please Him: “So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it” (2 Cor 5:9). “He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work” (1 Jn 3:8). Gospel sanctification claims to be the only right way to run the race of sanctification, but is that really the case?
What is Gospel Sanctification?
First, let’s look at a traditional view of sanctification. The Scriptures make it clear that there is nothing we can do to save ourselves; it is a work of God alone. But once we are born again we are new creatures set apart and enabled by God to dependently work with him in the sanctification process. Sanctification is the spiritual growth process that takes place until God brings us home. Most evangelicals would agree with that definition. However, proponents of gospel sanctification would say: “No, no, no, God alone saved us but now you say we can work for our sanctification? The gospel saved us and it also must sanctify us, both are a work of God alone. We are saved by the gospel and sanctified by the gospel.” Hence the term gospel sanctification. As Jerry Bridges often says: “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Therefore, we are saved by the gospel and must live by the gospel every day (there is some element of truth to this; for instance, everyday repentance likens somewhat to our original repentance at salvation, but in fact, is not exactly the same [Jn 13:10]). The next logical question is: how does that apply to our everyday walk with God? As a friend of mine often says, “Put feet on that.” Well, think salvation. The main key to gospel sanctification is that you couldn’t do anything to be saved and you therefore cannot do anything to be sanctified. Dana L. Stoddard, in his treatise on gospel sanctification in the Journal Of Biblical Counseling entitled, “The Daily Christian Life,” put it this way:
It is by virtue of Christ’s perfect life, death on the cross and resurrection-plus nothing-that we are justified (made and declared right with God) and sanctified (set apart, kept, and viewed as right in the Lord’s eyes by virtue of his obedience). Christ is our holiness. Christ is our sanctification.
Therefore, according to Stoddard in this article which is an excellent representation of the gospel-driven life, both justification and sanctification are brought about by the life and death of Christ “plus nothing.” Stoddard further drives this point home by quoting John Murray who calls this view definitive sanctification (sanctification by virtue of the indicative alone): “Being made and declared holy is a definitive act of God alone in Christ” (emphasis mine). Therefore, gospel sanctification by virtue of its definition alone is necessarily a passive approach to sanctification. It seeks to synthesize justification and sanctification as much as possible making everything a total work of God alone. Is it biblical? And if it isn’t, what are the ramifications?
But first, let me say that proponents of gospel sanctification would be very quick to answer a charge of let go and let God. Gospel sanctification does have a practical application. But again, it is necessarily limited by its passive definition and attempts to make sanctification as monergistic as justification (or otherwise as passive as possible). In other words, our contribution to the sanctification process is limited and narrow. Paul David Tripp, a propagator of gospel sanctification, even refers to biblical thinking as a, “technique that is not sufficient for real change.” For all practical purposes, he says in one of his books that 2 Corinthians 10:4-6 is unbiblical:
But this approach again omits the person and work of Christ as Savior, Instead, it reduces our relationship to Christ to think his thoughts and act the way Jesus would act (How People Change pg. 27).
When you warn readers that even our own efforts to change our thinking to the mind of Christ is a work that eclipses the person and work of Christ, that is excessively passive. Also, note that the crux of the matter in Tripp’s mind is “omitting the person and work of Christ as Savior” (emphasis mine). This is a very defining statement in regard to gospel sanctification; we can exclude Christ as Savior from the sanctification process. Any effort on our part, even an attempt to align our thinking with the mind of Christ is to exclude the person of Christ from the sanctification process. Proponents of gospel sanctification make no distinction between justification and sanctification; both are monergistic and obtained by the gospel. Of course, this approach would be a really hard sell to Christians at large if there was no real-life application. So then, what are the primary working dynamics of gospel sanctification, if any? In other words, is there a practical application? As one person asked me, “So what are we supposed to do?” (GS proponents often say that very question is indicative of a grave spiritual problem).
Deep Repentance
Remember, think gospel. What did you have to do to get saved? Believe and repent. The sanctification process is then no different. Daily repentance is the primary thrust of gospel sanctification because it is the lowest common denominator of passivity that proponents can come up with. Remember, we are dealing with a narrow concept, so whatever elements they have must be greatly embellished. So, we have deep repentance as opposed to regular everyday biblical repentance. This is a process in which the heart is emptied of any desire that exceeds our desire for Christ. This can be done through our recognition of daily sin but not stopping there, we must determine what desire led to the sin (good luck).
Theology of the Heart
This is the process that is used to determine the sinful desires of the heart (see “How People Change,” chapter 6). It involves a knowledge of how the heart supposedly works in the milieu of life and often explained through visual charts. Besides outward sin and response to circumstances, desires can be evaluated by asking ourselves x-ray questions. Paul Tripp supplies a list of thirty-four with two or three phrases in each that ask additional questions in each separate question on page 163 of “HPC” for a total of about 100. The most popular one that you will hear often is: “What did you want?” Imagining possible future circumstances of life and thinking about how we might respond while asking ourselves the right x-ray questions is yet another way to determine desires of the heart that cause sin. We empty our heart of idols that distort our desires by confessing them daily, and then Christ fills our hearts with himself resulting in an effortless flow of obedience. Supposedly.
Belief and Identity
Once we have emptied our heart of idols, we then “rest and feed” on the living Christ who then fills our heart with Himself, replacing the idols of the heart (idols that create desires that exceed a desire for Christ, “HPC” pg. 28). We also focus and learn about who we are, and what we have in Christ to fill the void left by the eradication of sinful desires / idols effected by deep repentance.
New Obedience
The result of this process is new obedience. Or as Tripp explains it in “HPC”: “New and Surprising Fruit” (chap. 14). Or as others explain it, obedience is always a “mere natural flow” (The Imperative Command is Grounded in the Indicative Event, “Vossed World” blog). In other words, we are walking along and holy fruit just starts popping up everywhere without any effort and to our surprise. However, Philippians 2:8 says Christ was obedient to the cross. Now go to Matthew 26:36-46 and read about the struggle Christ experienced as he faced the cross. Hebrews 12:3,4 says: “Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood.”
Nevertheless, according to proponents of gospel sanctification, Christ died to pay the penalty for our sins and justify us before God, but also lived an obedient life in order to obey for us as well (remember what Stoddard said about us being justified and sanctified by the “life” and “death” of Christ with His active obedience being imputed to us, not just righteousness). To accept anything less is to exclude the person of Christ from the gospel, so they say. Some call this belief monergistic substitutionary sanctification. Christ was not only a substitute for the penalty of sin; but was also, and presently is, a substitution for all our works in sanctification as well.
Joy
So how do we know when we are obeying God in our own efforts or when it is the work of Christ through us? Easy, our obedience is accompanied by joy and all willingness, that’s how we know according to proponents of the gospel-driven life. Joyless obedience is always in our own efforts and not pleasing to God. Please do not misunderstand me, I realize there is much obedience in the life of a believer accompanied by joy and complete willingness, but sometimes that joy comes as a result of the obedience at a later time. Knowing this often helps us to endure accordingly: “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb 12:2). Here I must pause and interject a very important note: Paul Tripp is the guru who has articulated the supposed practical application of the gospel-driven life via “How People Change.” John Piper is the guru who has articulated the experience of gospel sanctification via Christian hedonism and other such writings. Much of the theory in regard to how the gospel-driven life is experienced is through the writings of John Piper.
What does that look like?
This is a gospel sanctification (GS) buzz question / mantra that replaces “how do we do that?” How, is now the wrong question to ask because it indicates there is actually something we can do to participate in the sanctification process, a crime worthy of death. If you doubt the wide spread influence GS has today, take note of how often you hear that phrase. Even the terminology must be changed to discourage some kind of effort on our part in the sanctification process that might imply some verb to follow.
The GS Hermeneutic
But what about all of those pesky Bible verses that seem to contradict gospel sanctification’s passive approach? Like say for instance, 1 Corinthians 9:27; ”No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.” No problem. GS has its own process for interpreting the Bible through the lens of a gospel perspective so everything comes out redemptive. It’s called the redemptive-historical hermeneutic, or the Christocentric hermeneutic, or the cross-centered hermeneutic; so you have the theology of GS doing the interpretation.
GS Characteristics
Gospel sanctification is well suited for American culture. It’s new, It’s easy, and claims to have a low failure rate. It also has a strong intimidation factor. To speak against GS is to be against Christ and his gospel. To be against GS is to propagate the “legalism” of self-discipline and hard work in the sanctification process. Worse yet, if you believe that obedience is an exercise of the will to please God, you are supposedly engaging in works salvation. First of all, any Christian knows that we cannot please God apart from His life giving Spirit, but neither are we merely potted plants in the process:
We sent Timothy, who is our brother and God’s fellow worker in spreading the gospel of Christ, to strengthen and encourage you in your faith (1 Thess 3:2, emphasis mine. Some translations: “coworker”). Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15, emphasis mine).
GS is destructive error for the following reasons:
It takes away from the word of God in regard to elements of biblical sanctification.
Our resources and guiding truth concerning sanctification in the Bible are many faceted and numerous. GS is a narrow approach that excludes or ignores key truths of sanctification such as satanic strategy and our battle with the flesh. According to GS proponents, these kinds of considerations, and many others distract us from “owning our own sin.” They say that the flesh is not our problem, the heart is the problem, the flesh is a realm. As only one example among many, most GS teachers do not see Satan as being in the loop of spiritual warfare, regardless of clear warnings from the Scriptures. This is no trite matter.
The following quote concerns John Piper’s Christian Hedonism which is the articulation of how gospel sanctification is experienced. But, the same concerns expressed by Dr. Masters below can also be applied to gospel sanctification as a whole. Gospel sanctification applies, and confines sanctification to the same elements of justification which are much fewer; namely, by faith alone.
But Dr. Piper’s formula for its use undoubtedly alters the understanding of sanctification long held by believers in the Reformation tradition, because it elevates one Christian duty above all others.
Delighting in God, we repeat, is made the organizing principle for every other spiritual experience and duty. It becomes the key formula for all spiritual vigor and development. Every other Christian duty is thought to depend on how well we obey this central duty of delighting in the Lord. The entire Christian life is simplified to rest upon a single quest, which is bound to distort one’s perception of the Christian life and how it must be lived. Whatever the strengths of Dr. Piper’s ministry, and there are many, his attempt to oversimplify biblical sanctification is doomed to failure.
Because the biblical method for sanctification and spiritual advance consists of a number of strands or pathways of action, and all must receive individual attention. As soon as you substitute a single ‘big idea’ or organizing principle, and bundle all the strands into one, you alter God’s design and method. Vital aspects of Truth and conduct will go by the board to receive little or no attention.
It denies specific biblical instruction.
GS denies that the Bible includes specific instruction. The hit list of GS includes: living by lists; do’s and don’ts; put off and put on; biblical thinking; discipline; and a traditional view of obedience among many others. Yet 2 Timothy 3:16 says: “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”
It redefines obedience and the gospel.
It makes obedience in the sanctification process synonymous with works salvation. Therefore, it redefines Christ as a Lord that does not require obedience, and in fact, rejects it. Is it therefore a half gospel that presents Christ as Savior only? Yes.
It redefines spiritual warfare.
Gospel sanctification’s battleground location would suggest a totally different form of warfare as opposed to warfare with sin that abides in the flesh. For one thing, warfare with the flesh is much more defined as opposed to the subjective nature of what the Bible calls the heart. As a matter of fact, Jeremiah suggested that we cannot know the heart to begin with. These are two separate paths of sanctification. Saints would do well to choose their path carefully.
The church for the most part defines spiritual warfare as Scripture describes it, a warfare between our regenerate heart and the flesh. Disciplines that feed our spirit God’s pure milk and deprive the flesh of provisions is not merely an outside warfare verses an inside warfare, it is the biblical prescription.
It robs Christians of assurance of salvation.
Throughout Scripture, striving in obedience to the word of God is said to result in assurance of salvation. Most notably, 2 Peter 1:5-11. This is a far cry from the prescription for assurance by New Calvinist Jerry Bridges who counsels us to have assurance via “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day.”
paul
ABWE Bangladesh MK’s Fighting On for Allusive Justice and Protection of Others
“When the sheep figure out that the shepherd only defends against the wolf because he wants the same wool and mutton. When it dawns on his herd animal mind that he will be eaten either way, he finally stands up like a man and argues against the definition of “God’s Glory” equaling being served up for dinner. In that moment, the howl from the wolves and the shepherds is the same.”
~John Immel
Latest Post by the Bangladesh Mks: “Keeping On”
Timeline
PPT MK Articles and Related:
Too Bad About the “Kids,” But Like GM, ABWE is Just Too Big to Fail
A Slow GRACE for the Former Missionary Children: Part One
ABWE Scandal Has Too Much Gospel
Former Abused Missionary Children Are Loving ABWE God’s Way
When Gospel Seperated From Law Becomes Bad News For Our Children
Biblical Counseling as Cover-up: Professional Courtesy Among Reformed Pastors is Epidemic
Blight in the Vineyard, and Clergy Sex Abuse: Some Initial Thoughts Provoked by John Immel’s Book
PPT Links:
http://bangladeshmksspeak.wordpress.com/
http://www.abwe.org/news/article/abwe-responds-to-mks-blog
http://bamissions.blogspot.com/
http://bangladeshmksspeak.com/
The New Blog Addition and Why
There is no doubt that God always brings good out of trials experienced by believers. But yet, we are also instructed to pray, “Deliver us from evil.” We are not to be anxious for anything, but are to make our supplications known to God. We are to pray that God’s will in heaven is done on Earth; and there isn’t much suffering going on up there. Even Christ prayed for the possibility that His cup of suffering might pass by without a partaking.
I love the song “If You Want Me To” by Ginny Owens. I only take exception to the idea that God “wants” us to suffer trials. I think it’s His will at times, but I am not sure He “wants” it. But I can tell you what He doesn’t want: evil. As Christians, we are to prevent it, shun it, and take up the cause of those who are victimized by it. God is a God of justice. Unbelieving image bearers that have the law of God written on their hearts will not even tolerate evil much of the time. How much more true should this be among Christians?
It has been an interesting journey for me since the first hint that something wasn’t right at my church home of twenty years. Five years later, I now have a clear picture of what happened and why. Sure, my own sin didn’t help the situation any, but be sure of this: my most grievous sin was that of ignorance. I wasn’t paying attention, and the cost was great. Well, God did bring much good out of it, but Christ didn’t come with an attitude that evil is good so that more grace can abound; He came to destroy the works of the devil.
Until now, I have focused primarily on the doctrine that glories in a deeper knowledge of our supposed worthlessness and depravity—making that the sum of our sanctification. To focus on that supposedly makes God bigger. A doctrine that embraces suffering as a good thing. A doctrine that propagates an indifference to injustice; after all, we are totally depraved and deserve to suffer. A doctrine that propagates unaccountable enlightened ones leading the Christian SpongeBob masses. I have done this and not focused directly on the “church” that sought to utterly destroy me for questioning their authority.
That now must change. Others have also recognized that remaining silent in order to not “make it about me” is not working out well, and lives continue to be decimated by ecclesiastical tyrants. Moreover, other leaders will not do anything because inherent in this doctrine is the “authority = truth” motif. I simply do not owe it to them to keep my silence and not use whatever gifts granted me to sound the alarm. I simply do not owe it to them to let others be led to the slaughter unawares. And as far as allowing them to present themselves as orthodox unabated: I don’t owe them that either.
I follow others who are doing the same; for example, http://joyfulexiles.com/. Others before us saw the light much sooner; for example http://fbcjaxwatchdog.blogspot.com/. Authority does not equal truth, and if the peers of today’s spiritual despots will not hold them accountable, our Lord God willing, we will.
Clearcreek Chapel Watch .wordpress.com or clearcreekchapel.com
Shame On You John MacArthur!
Once a rabid respecter of John MacArthur, I now have absolutely no respect for him. I am keeping some of his books in my library for reference purposes, but that’s about it. And as one who actively promoted financing/support for Christians to attend his college, I now consider him a danger to the wellbeing of Christianity in general. I have watched his decline (due to bad company with the likes of mega-heretic John Piper) for some time, but his willingness to support and associate with CJ Mahaney reveals the true heart of John MacArthur Jr.
I am almost finished reading “Blight In The Vineyard” by John Immel, and I’m looking forward to writing a review on it, and I’m taking this review very seriously as I believe this book is one of the most relevant books of our day. I have made the book required reading for all in the Dohse household. Immel, among the other hefty services rendered to the church in said book, provides Cliff Notes (in a manner of speaking) for SGM Wikileaks.
I have gone to Wikileaks and read, primarily because Reformed despots say it is gossip to do so (and thereby doing my duty), but have really been unable to ascertain any great evil on the part of CJ Mahaney because of the massiveness of the documents. Well, Immel clears that all up by pointing out a few atrocities and the page numbers. The only one I had to see follows: the transcript of a recorded conversation between CJ Mahaney and SGM cofounder Larry Tomczak. CJ Mahaney, according to the transcript by anybody’s measure, is trying to blackmail Tomczak who left SGM for doctrinal reasons (Calvinism).
Ok, look, what happened to Tomczac plays out over, and over, and over again in churches daily because of the new resurgence of Geneva style true-blue Calvinism. Aka, New Calvinism. As Charles Spurgeon once said, “Calvinism is the Gospel.” Therefore, as CJ said to Larry, “Doctrine is an unacceptable reason for leaving P.D.I” (People of Destiny International—later renamed SGM). If I only had a nickel for every time we see this played out here at TANK/PPT. It goes like this:
- The elders are informed someone is leaving for doctrinal issues.
- They are immediately confronted with “unrepentant, longstanding sin” in their lives. Like Calvin, they believe (out of necessity for control) that ANY sin is fodder for church discipline.
- They are placed in a church discipline “process” that includes counseling. When you have shown forth “fruits meet for repentance” as judged by fruit inspecting elders, you are released from the counseling (ie., you convert to Gospel Sanctification).
- If you try to leave the church without being released from “counseling,” the assembly is told that you are jumping ship in the middle of the Matthew 18 process. The congregation usually assumes the victim was confronted with an issue or dispute, and left before the offended party could come back with witnesses. The anti-gospel (synonymous with anti-Calvinism per Spurgeon) individual is then excommunicated which totally discredits him/her from blowing the whistle or challenging the doctrine of God’s anointed.
Apparently, in Tomczak’s case, that wasn’t going to fly, so CJ threatened to reveal sins committed by Tomczak’s (at the time a minor) son. Tomczak’s wife, who was on the line, called Mahaney out in regard to the fact that it was pure, unadulterated blackmail. Also consider that the son had confessed the sin and was granted forgiveness thereof. Unbelievably, when CJ is reminded of that, he tells the Tomcsaks that he wouldn’t have promised to keep the forgiven sins confidential if he knew at the time that they were going to leave for doctrinal reasons.
Immel also points out (according to Wikileaks documents) that Mahaney and SGM cronies had their attorneys review a proposal for revealing the sin/sins publically. Their attorneys strongly advised against it because Georgia law protects the rights of minors in such cases. But in a brilliant observation, Immel asks what would have happened if the church and the state of Georgia were the same! (as propagated by the Reformers for the necessary control of the totally depraved zombie sheep). Game over. Tomcsak submits or SGM reveals the information.
And this is the crux. Because Reformed leaders of the John Calvin Geneva Theocracy club cannot evoke the state to enforce their authority (not yet, anyway), they all stick together. MacArthur, Dever, Mohler, Piper et al, see a huge lack of respect in the church for the authority that they think they should have among God’s people. How they choose to save the totally depraved zombie sheep from themselves is none of our business. They have no time to be concerned with the necessary fallout that accompanies the John Calvin gospel of the enlightened ones leading the totally depraved through the fabricated spiritual minefield they call sanctification.
This explains why the cries of abused sheep fall on the deaf ears of other leaders, time, and time again. I have become convinced of this unequivocally. Nevertheless, and while one also wonders what else might be in the Wikileaks documents, MacArthur’s willingness to associate with CJ Mahaney is deplorable. But this is who John MacArthur really is. My God fearing grandmother said it well, and often: “Birds of the feather flock together.”
paul
Germantown, Ohio Conference Moves Forward
Contrary to other information, the Germantown, Ohio New Calvinist discernment conference IS NOT cancelled. Initially, the conference was planned as a joint venture of TANC (Truth About New Calvinism) and TCANC (The Coalition Against New Calvinism). At the request of TCANC, the conference was put under the one banner.
That has not worked out, so we are simply moving forward under TANC which has always been the host of the conference to begin with. We will be temporarily using the domain name “Coalition Against New Calvinism” (which we purchased for the conference) as TANC has already invested significant advertising dollars under that domain. We will also be using the same google group site to send conference updates. However, you can also subscribe to conference updates by going directly to the conference website at coalitionagainstnewcalvinism.com.
We wish the best for Joel Taylor and his TCANC organization, and look forward to seeing you at the first annual TANC discernment conference.
Paul M. Dohse
Reformed Theology = All Righteousness REMAINING Completely Outside of Us
“If the Platonist monster is hiding in the church’s big closet, there is no priesthood of believers and pastors/elders are the enlightened ones who must tell us who to marry, what to eat, and what to wear. They must also do whatever it takes to protect the totally depraved zombie sheep from themselves. And look around, we are almost there right now. The mega-church is behaving like Rome and Geneva’s theocracy more and more every day.”
“So now we have this core element of all righteousness remaining outside of the believer. Where do we go from here? What about the new birth? What’s ‘new’ about us if all righteousness remains outside of us?”
“Though New Calvinist elders talk of the new birth and Christ being ‘in’ us, you must understand they’re using earthly language that the totally depraved zombie sheep can understand. They do not believe Christ works in us (which can be clearly seen from the aforementioned Piper quote), or that we are born again enabled people.”
This post will demonstrate that Reformation theology called for grace/righteousness to remain completely outside of us. In fact, Reformation theology even rejects the idea that Jesus is doing ALL of the work IN US as Christians. The Reformers, primarily Luther and Calvin, taught that the primary difference between Romanism and true Christianity was this whole idea that Jesus did a sanctifying work INSIDE of us verses a sanctifying work OUTSIDE of us. They decried the former as an “infused grace” that enabled us to partake in the finishing or participation of our justification. Problem is, that’s why it is important that justification and sanctification are seen as being separate. Justification is a finished work, and sanctification doesn’t finish justification. Once that is established, the conversation gets interesting: “Where do we go from there?”
This Reformation concept and everything it leads to, also leads to a social death at various points in history. Other forms of Reformation theology sanctified by spiritual common sense carry the Reformation motif forward, while the pure Reformation gospel dies out. Jay Adams is a good example of a Sanctified Calvinist. But from time to time, a resurgence of the pure Reformation gospel comes about via rediscovery, and that is exactly what is going on with the New Calvinist Movement. Hence, Sanctified Calvinists are not the original article—that’s why so many of them oppose “New Calvinism.”
But why does the original article die a social death? Primarily because of the basic philosophy that led to the doctrine. Plato was a religious philosopher. He believed that man cannot know reality, and lives in a world that is a shadow of truth. He also believed that there are people who can endeavor to know truth and become enlightened, but in doing so, cannot be enslaved to what their senses can understand according to physical matter. Truth is something completely outside of the human realm. He then asserted that the enlightened needed to rule the unenlightened, and that the purpose of government should aid the philosopher king in controlling the unenlightened masses to protect them from themselves. Augustine was greatly influenced by these teachings, and Augustine’s development of these ideas were passed on to Luther and Calvin.
This is really no big secret if one does some research and stops listening to what others tell them. Plato was the father of Gnosticism, which embellishes the “practical application” of Reformed theology in its purest form. Hence, the spiritual tyranny that comes out of this philosophy causes it to be rejected socially from time to time. In other words, the fallout from the resurgence begins to manifest itself; or, the chickens come home to roost. That part dies out, while Calvinism by name, primarily (supposedly) representing the sovereignty of God issue (its sanctifying element) continues to live on until the next rediscovery movement. The New Calvinist Movement is now shining a light on what Calvin really believed. The Calvin Institutes are a brilliant systemizing of Augustinian theology, but Sanctified Calvinists don’t hold to the whole package which explains contradictions in their soteriology and eschatology.
But on the other hand, a need develops in the remaining theological systems that fuse justification and sanctification together. Since sanctification is said to finish justification, how can a person be found truly righteous at the one, final judgment? In theological systems where the two are separate; this isn’t a problem, we are declared righteous and our living in sanctification will show that, but has no bearing on the declaration and our guaranteed glorification. However, if the two are fused, that is, justification and sanctification, we must not only be positionally righteous, but must indeed be perfect in order for God’s declaration not to be “legal fiction.” So, the question becomes: “How can we be truly perfect in order to stand in the judgment?” In the theological system that separates justification and sanctification, the answer is: “I don’t have to be found righteous at a future judgment because I will not stand at any such judgment. I have already been declared righteous, and would be perfect if I wasn’t still in this mortal body. But in reality, I am a born again holy one hindered by this mortal, sinful flesh.”
This doesn’t bode well in the Platonist mindset, for now we have a whole race of enlightened ones who are capable of knowing truth on their own (and as I note in The Truth About New Calvinism, this denotes the idea that the law of God can be used to please Him and to live an abundant sanctified life with the help of the Spirit). Not only that, it makes us participants in the “Golden Chain of Salvation”; ie, we are “ENABLED” to participate in the finishing of our salvation/justification. This is a problem because the results are still imperfect, and thus God’s declaration is still “legal fiction.” If your mindset is that salvation is a continuous chain that links justification to glorification with sanctification being the middle links (an exact illustration used by John Piper), then the work must be all of God in order for it to be sufficient for us to stand in the future judgment. “Infused grace” only enables us enough to be dangerous and makes us participants in an imperfect endeavor which would make God a liar at the final judgment.
But nevertheless, it is what it is and gives rise to a reintroduction/need of purest Reformed theology: since Christians function in the “Golden Chain of Salvation,” we must find a way to be in the sanctification links while making our perfection true reality. How is this done? Theological systems of all stripes that fuse justification and sanctification together are left to languish in this question on their own until the collective peacelessness of the people cry out for another way. An infused enablement (in the justification endeavor) and pseudo perfectionism doesn’t fill the bill.
This exact scenario gave rise to the present-day New Calvinist Movement. One of the languishing theological systems that views sanctification as the completer of justification is Seventh-Day Adventism. Since 1884, this movement, trapped in the context of the Golden Chain of Salvation, has struggled to answer the question of how one stands righteous in the judgment. In 1970, a SDA theologian named Robert Brinsmead blew the lid off of the whole debate. In The Truth About New Calvinism, I cite the writings of someone who was involved with Brinsmead’s movement at that time:
In 1971, Brinsmead scheduled a flurry of summer institutes to bring us his latest emphasis. There was more excitement than usual; the latest round of tapes had prepared us for something big. Bob had been studying the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith, comparing it to Roman Catholic doctrines. Reading Luther, he saw that justification is not just a means to the end of perfect sanctification. When we are justified by faith, not only does God impute Christ’s righteousness to us but we also possess Christ Himself—all His righteousness and all His perfection. Eternity flows from that fact….
“And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom. 8:30).
The same ones he justified he also glorified. We began to realize we had inserted extra steps into Paul’s chain of salvation: sanctification and a final atonement brought about by blotting out sins. Those added steps, in fact, were the heart of the Awakening message—but we had ignored the heart of the real gospel: being justified by faith, we ‘rejoice in hope of the glory of God.’ Our righteousness is in heaven, said Brinsmead:
“The righteousness by which we become just in God’s sight, remain just in His sight and will one day be sealed as forever just in His sight, is an outside righteousness. It is not on earth, but only in heaven…only in Jesus Christ.”
True sanctification looks away from self and flows from the finished, objective work of Christ…. For many Christians, the glory of the crucified Christ is not their focus; instead they seek internal experiences that eclipse the cross. The Awakening rightly opposed the subjective, human-centered emphasis found among some groups within Christianity. Wrongly, they reacted with a cerebral, spiritless gospel. Brinsmead strongly opposed the Charismatic movement’s emphasis on experiences as a return to the theology of Rome. However, going to another extreme, Present Truth magazine decried “the false gospel of the new birth,” and offered a new birth that was merely a corporate, objective blessing, not an individual experience. (pp. 33, 34).
This concept that Brinsmead claimed he got directly from the Reformers launched the Awakening Movement and turned the SDA completely upside down. Because of the supposed fact that the true Reformation gospel of justification by faith alone had been all but lost in evangelical circles, Brinsmead, along with two Anglican theologians formed the Australian Forum think tank to systematize the theology into a contemporary understanding. And they were dead right: what they developed was in fact the true Reformation gospel; righteousness and grace remains completely outside of the believer—justification cannot be completed by an infused ability to participate in the completion of justification because our participation results in falling short of perfection. This rediscovery was perhaps the most significant rediscovery movement since Colonial Calvinism, and a book written by one of the Australian Forum 4, Geoffrey Paxton (“The Shaking of Adventism”), would lend merit to that idea. An illustration from the Forum’s theological journal captures the essence of the doctrine:
Freeze that thought. Don’t try to connect the dots yet. It is what it is. No righteousness can be inside of us (meaning Christians). In fact, Christ doesn’t even really do a work inside of us either. Yes, I know they use that terminology from time to time, but that’s not what they mean. It is critical that we establish that fact right now, and then we will build understanding. Let’s first demonstrate that one of the primary figures of the New Calvinist movement, John Piper, believes this exactly, and also believes that it was the crux of the Reformation. Piper wrote an article about a series of lectures that one of the Australian 4 conducted at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. The following is from my book, The Truth About New Calvinism:
In March, 2008, Graeme Goldsworthy of the Forum delivered a lecture at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary entitled Biblical Theology and its Pastoral Application. Part of the thesis concerned why the Reformation was needed. The purpose of Goldsworthy’s lecture was affirmed by pastor John Piper in an article he wrote on his Desiring God blog on June 25, 2009 entitled Goldsworthy on Why the Reformation Was Necessary. The lecture, and Piper’s response shows an uncanny kinship between the Forum and New Calvinism. Examples in the present Christian landscape are myriad , but this particular combination shows agreement on all of the Forum’s major, and unique tenets….In the aforementioned article concerning Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern, Piper agrees that the original Reformation sought to correct the reversal of sanctification and justification:
This meant the reversal of the relationship of sanctification to justification. Infused grace, beginning with baptismal regeneration, internalized the Gospel and made sanctification the basis of justification. This is an upside down Gospel….When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.
Note his words carefully. At issue is any kind of infusion of grace into the sanctification process. In case you think he is talking about wayward Catholicism, here is what he adds to these thoughts:
In it [Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern] it gave one of the clearest statements of why the Reformation was needed and what the problem was in the way the Roman Catholic church had conceived of the gospel….I would add that this ‘upside down’ gospel has not gone away—neither from Catholicism nor from Protestants (pp. 41-43).
So whether or not the belief is infused grace for the new birth or some abhorrent variation of evangelicalism is not the point; the point is the infusion of grace within the believer for sanctification or any other reason. To do that is to supposedly make us a part of our own justification. But how in the world would this work in real life? This seemingly leaves us without any spiritual arms or legs—virtual paraplegics in a spiritual sense. How can a feasible role be introduced while staying faithful to Platonist ideal?
Enter Reformed theology. But before I do, let me reiterate that this everything good outside of us ideal is the calling card of the New Calvinist Movement and what they understand to be the crux of the Reformation. The following are several quotes from key figures in the New Calvinist movement. Keep in mind that these statements are in regard to Christians:
The blessings of the gospel come to us from outside of us and down to us.
~ John Fonville
We need help from outside ourselves—and he helps.
~ David Powlison
So what does this objective Gospel look like? Most importantly, it is outside of us.
~ Reblogged by Tullian Tchividjian
Thus, it will inevitably lead not to self-examination that leads us to despair of ourselves and seek Christ alone outside of us, but to a labyrinth of self-absorption.
~ Michael Horton
When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel
~John Piper
And from my interview with Robert Brinsmead:
Author: What do you think the unique theological findings of the Forum were in light of history? Robert Brinsmead: “Definitely the centrality and all sufficiency of the objective gospel understood as an historical rather than an experiential event, something wholly objective rather than subjective – an outside of me event and the efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness.”
Brinsmead’s last statement is a powerful description of this doctrine: “…something wholly objective rather than subjective – an outside of me event and the efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness.”
All righteousness being outside of the believer is in my estimation where the line is drawn in the sand between Reformed theology and the rest of Christianity—not the election/free will debate per se. If the argument is there, then at least debate it in regard to the born again Christian having no real spiritual life, and no free will. Let’s start there, and leave the free will to choose God in salvation fight for another day. If the Platonist monster is hiding in the church’s big closet, there is no priesthood of believers and pastors/elders are the enlightened ones who must tell us who to marry, what to eat, and what to wear. They must also do whatever it takes to protect the totally depraved zombie sheep from themselves. And look around, we are almost there right now. The mega-church is behaving like Rome and Geneva’s theocracy more and more every day.
Sure, when you corner them, they are going to deny this, but there is simply too much circumstantial evidence/theology to back this claim. How can the total depravity of the saints not add up to this “efficacy of an outside-of-me righteousness”? You say, “Now Paul, where have any of these guys said that we are ‘totally depraved’? Look, I am not going to play word games here. If Isaiah 64:6 applies to born again believers, as many in Reformed circles contend, then the accusation is fair and apt for illustration purposes. Besides, many are now using that term specifically to describe Christians. Moreover, Calvin himself stated the following:
There can be no doubt that Paul, when he treats of the Justification of man, confines himself to the one point—how man may ascertain that God is propitious to him? Here he does not remind us of a quality infused into us; on the contrary, making no mention of works, he tells us that righteousness must be sought without us; otherwise that certainty of faith, which he everywhere so strongly urges, could never stand; still less could there be ground for the contrast between the righteousness of faith and works which he draws in the tenth chapter to the Romans….( (From Kenneth A. Strand, ed., Reform Essentials of Luther and Calvin: A Source Collection [Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield, 1971], pp.219-222).
Please think about this: it is a debate concerning our very identity as Christians. If we don’t even know who and what we are: God help us. This total inability and all righteousness being outside of us profoundly effects the following hallmark elements of the Christian faith:
- The new birth.
- Use of the law in sanctification.
- The very definition of the gospel itself.
- The relationship and authority of elders to the saints.
- The relationship and authority of the church to the saints.
- The authority of the Word in relationship to saints/elders.
- The proper use of God’s word in counseling.
- The proper use of God’s word for preaching.
- The difference between justification and sanctification.
- The roles of justification and sanctification in the life of the saint.
- The difference between repentance for salvation and sanctification.
- The very definition of biblical obedience.
- Eschatological truth.
- Future judgment of mankind.
And frankly, the present-day church is showing symptoms of misunderstanding in these areas that approaches fallout in the realm of biblical proportions.
So now we have this core element of all righteousness remaining outside of the believer. Where do we go from here? What about the new birth? What’s “new” about us if all righteousness remains outside of us? Here is where Platonism, and its twin sibling, Gnosticism, partner with Reformed theology, at least the Plato—Augustine—Luther—Calvin strain. We don’t change; we are merely transported into a different realm (darkness/light) where we can determine which realm we manifest by what we contemplate or meditate on. New Calvinists have even developed a way to determine how that is experienced: John Piper’s Christian Hedonism. The Scriptures then serve the following primary purposes:
- A contemplation tool for the totally depraved zombie saints.
- A polity structure guide for Reformed elders.
- A book for preaching the gospel to the totally depraved.
- It makes Reformed elders the experts on seeing Christ in every verse of the Bible, and therefore relegating believers to a pope-like reliance on Reformed elders.
In speaking of the Bible’s function in the scheme of things, I am getting a little ahead of myself. Since all righteousness remains outside of the believer, the “practical application” of this theology is the continual resaving of the saint; or, a continual manifestation of a grace completely outside of us. The Bible then becomes the tool for doing that. Reading the Bible for learning and doing is strongly discouraged. Everything in the Bible is to show forth grace. The imperatives show us what we can’t do, but what Christ has done for us. It also shows us how other totally depraved zombie sheep have experienced grace manifestations throughout redemptive history. In the latest rediscovery movement (New Calvinism), this Platonist, metaphysical approach is not hard to see. Two of the most popular New Calvinist websites have Gnostic themes: “Between Two Worlds,” and “Between Two Spheres.” The number one tenet of New Covenant Theology (New Calvinism’s approach to law/gospel), as described by the Earth Stove Society (a NCT think tank) is:
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 [ALL reality?].
Though New Calvinist elders talk of the new birth and Christ being “in” us, you must understand they’re using earthly language that the totally depraved zombie sheep can understand. They do not believe Christ works in us (which can be clearly seen from the aforementioned Piper quote), or that we are born again enabled people. Hence, they need to keep us away from the truth of the new birth in ways that can be understood by us. One may also note the lack of teaching on the new birth altogether in New Calvinist churches. Their only alternative is to come right out and say that we really don’t perform any works, but rather manifest works already accomplished by Christ from another realm. Good luck with that; the adolescent Sunday school gang will not even buy that when stated forthrightly.
So what do they teach? Answer: “EMPHASIS” as the only relevant truth. This is blatant Platonism. Plato taught that what we experience on Earth (what the senses can detect) are shadows of truth. Sure, shadows are real, but they aren’t truth/reality. Likewise, there is a sense in which the Holy Spirit does a work in us, but it’s not really relevant to the blazing truth of the objective gospel which deals with the works of Christ, and not subjective works by us via help from the Holy Spirit. Anything short of focusing on the “Sun” eclipses the Son and causes us to focus on the shadows of lesser, irrelevant truth. This is a primary theme of Rick Holland’s book, “Uneclipsing the Son.” The Australian Forum (the aforementioned rediscovery movement) published an article entitled “The False Gospel of the New Birth” which was based on the Platonist concept of emphasis (shadows verses what the sun revealed about the objects casting the shadows). This concept can be seen by them in quotes from the article, but also echoed by contemporary New Calvinists:
It robs Christ of His glory by putting the Spirit’s work in the believer above and therefore against what Christ has done for the believer in His doing and dying.
~ Geoffrey Paxton (Australian Forum)
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~ Michael Horton
And the new-birth-oriented “Jesus-in-my-heart” gospel of evangelicals has destroyed the Old Testament just as effectively as has nineteenth-century liberalism. (footnoted to Paxton’s article with above quote).
~ Graeme Goldsworthy (Australian Forum)
Did an overzealous attempt to give God all of the glory for all works create the fusion of Justification and sanctification with a need for Gnosticism to be the “practical application”? Or did Platonism create the theology which dealt redeemed mankind from the sanctification process? Hard to say, but it is clear that this is what the Augustinian line of Reformers believed. And for all practical purposes is a perpetual justification and daily resaving by faith alone to maintain a just standing before God. From the archives of the Australian Forum:
The present continuous nature of justification was the genius of Luther’s emphasis. In
“The Disputation Concerning Justification” (1536). He says:
. . . forgiveness of sins is not a matter of a passing work or action, but comes from baptism which is of perpetual duration, until we arise from the dead. — Luther’s Works(American ed.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: concordia, 1955), vol. 34, p. 163.
. . . Forgiveness of sins is not a matter of a passing work or action, but of perpetual duration. For the forgiveness of sins begins in baptism and remains with us all the way to death, until we arise from the dead, and leads us into life eternal. So we live continually under the remission of sins. Christ. is truly and constantly the liberator from our sins, is called our Savior, and saves us by taking away our sins. If, however, he saves us always and continually, then we are constantly sinners. — Ibid., p.164.
On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. — Ibid., p.167.
For the forgiveness of sins is a continuing divine work, until we die. Sin does not cease. Accordingly, Christ saves us perpetually. —Ibid., p.190.
Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured. — Ibid., p.191.
This quote can be added by Calvin as well:
Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely, righteousness and sanctification. Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption [Romans 8:15], by whose power he remakes them to his own image. . . Yet Scripture, even though it joins them, still lists them separately in order that God’s manifold grace may better appear to us. — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), Bk. 3, chap. 11, sec. 6).
Another way to think of this is: we are sanctified the same way we are saved—by faith and repentance only. Salvation and sanctification are both completely monergistic. As New Calvinists say, “The same gospel that saves you also sanctifies you,” and “We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day.” Hundreds of years later, the doctrine and its Gnostic applications are not even ambiguous.
paul
JC Ryle Verses John Calvin on the Separation of Justification and Sanctification
“Christ cannot be torn into parts, so these two which we perceive in him together and conjointly are inseparable—namely, righteousness and sanctification. Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption [Romans 8:15], by whose power he remakes them to his own image. . . Yet Scripture, even though it joins them, still lists them separately in order that God’s manifold grace may better appear to us.” — John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), Bk. 3, chap. 11, sec. 6).
“But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification. In justification the word to address to man is believe–only believe; in sanctification the word must be ‘watch, pray, and fight.’ What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse” (JC Ryle, Holiness: Introduction).
Martin Luther: Justification/Salvation is Perpetual
From the archives of the Australian Forum:
The present continuous nature of justification was the genius of Luther’s emphasis. In “The Disputation Concerning Justification” (1536). He says:
. . . forgiveness of sins is not a matter of a passing work or action, but comes from baptism which is of perpetual duration, until we arise from the dead. — Luther’s Works(American ed.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press; St. Louis: concordia, 1955), vol. 34, p. 163.
. . . Forgiveness of sins is not a matter of a passing work or action, but of perpetual duration. For the forgiveness of sins begins in baptism and remains with us all the way to death, until we arise from the dead, and leads us into life eternal. So we live continually under the remission of sins. Christ. is truly and constantly the liberator from our sins, is called our Savior, and saves us by taking away our sins. If, however, he saves us always and continually, then we are constantly sinners. — Ibid., p.164.
On no condition is sin a passing phase, but we are justified daily by the unmerited forgiveness of sins and by the justification of God’s mercy. Sin remains, then, perpetually in this life, until the hour of the last judgment comes and then at last we shall be made perfectly righteous. — Ibid., p.167.
For the forgiveness of sins is a continuing divine work, until we die. Sin does not cease. Accordingly, Christ saves us perpetually. —Ibid., p.190.
Daily we sin, daily we are continually justified, just as a doctor is forced to heal sickness day by day until it is cured. — Ibid., p.191.
8 comments