The True Gospel Verses Calvinism: Part 3
“Pleasing God can’t be the goal because we are not free to aggressively obey and apply the word of God to our lives lest we unwittingly ‘make sanctification the ground of our justification.’”
What’s in a name? With “The Centrality of the Objective Gospel Outside of Us,” much. This is the core doctrine of Reformed theology.
Centrality
Reformed theology puts strong emphasis on the works of Christ to the exclusion of the other Trinity members. In fact, given their concept of “emphasis,” the other members of the Trinity are relegated to insignificance. Reformed theology distorts the Trinity. “Emphasis” is an actual Reformed hermeneutic that has its roots in Gnosticism. Again, let the Reformed scream and cry like alley cats in the night—their theology is deeply rooted in Gnosticism, and if you’re looking for it—it’s easy to see. The very illustration of the two men, one with Christ within, and the other with Christ without, is a Gnostic concept. It’s based on the idea that matter is evil, and spirit is good. That’s why the likes of Piper et al have a problem with “infused grace” as discussed in part 2. The righteousness of Christ (by the way, the Bible always refers to the righteousness of God the Father being imputed to us, not Christ) must always remain outside of us because we are still evil and of the earth. The biblical concept of the new birth flies in the face of Gnosticism. This is at the heart of the recent “Jesus in my heart” controversy of late.
“Centrality” makes Christ (or “gospel”) the key to all truth and relegates all else to insignificance. This clever Gnostic concept enables Reformed academics to agree that something is indeed truth, but insignificant. And in fact, if the insignificant is emphasized, it is an aberration of the truth because a “good thing is being emphasized, but not the BEST thing.” Which is always Christ and the gospel. This comes from the Gnostic concept that reality cannot be seen through the material world, but must be obtained through the spirit world. Matter, and the objects thereof are shadows of reality, or inferior copies of reality and goodness. Life is experienced via the “two worlds” with a minority having insight into the world of reality. Plato, the father of Gnosticism, believed that philosophers who had (through striving) come to see spiritual things, should rule over the masses who function in the shadows of reality.
Reformed theology merely makes “the gospel” that reality, and everything else “shadows.” And they aren’t even ambiguous about it. This concept is a major theme of Rick Holland’s book, “Uneclipsing The Son.” Holland is a former associate of John MacArthur who wrote the Forward to said book. MacArthur’s statements in the Forward are nothing short of shocking:
Rick Holland understands that truth. This book is an insightful, convicting reminder that no one and nothing other than Christ deserves to be the central theme of the tidings we as Christians proclaim—not only to one another and to the world, but also in the private meditations of our own hearts….The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock. Second Corinthians 3:18 describes in simple terms how God conforms us to the image of His Son: ‘And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another’ (emphasis added). We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
This, of course, is not the truth, and gives license to acknowledging the other two members of the Trinity and the new birth as truth while rendering them insignificant due to “emphasis.” In Gnosticism, emphasizing the shadows over the life giving sun is to emphasize a mere reflection or inferior copy of the truth. Hence, challenges by Holland/MacArthur associates like Pastor Steve Lawson to “come out from the shadows” are no mere coincidental use of words. Major Reformed ministries of our day have “Between Two Worlds” and “Between Two Spheres” (well- known Gnostic themes) as their major themes. Am I here right now? What could be more obvious?
Objective Gospel
According to Gnosticism, all reality (objective truth) is outside of man, and in another realm. Reformed theology merely makes Christ and the gospel the totality of all reality in the other world. Like Gnosticism, the gospel is deemed a higher knowledge that can’t be obtained by observing the shadows of the gospel, but the gospel itself must be meditated on to obtain the higher knowledge. That is why the importance of “always getting to Christ and the gospel in every passage” is strongly emphasized. On a Reformed website entitled the “Objective Gospel,” there are several videos posted that are lectures from the who’s who of today’s Reformed teachers. In one video, Paul Washer teaches that the gospel is eternal knowledge and can’t be completely known. I am not sure what I can add to that in order to make my point. Reformed teachers are merely Plato’s philosopher kings in my book. The Earth Stove Society, a Reformed think tank for New Covenant Theology, states the following in regard to tenet number one of New Covenant Theology:
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 [emphasis mine].
Outside of Us
According to Gnosticism, man cannot possess goodness because he is of the material world. This is why 1st century Gnostics taught that Jesus didn’t really come in the flesh and continually drove the Apostles nuts. The New Testament is replete with contentions against Gnosticism. Hence, Reformation theology rejects the idea that Christians change for the better. The cross illustration in part 2 should make that case. This Reformed concept is articulated well by Reformed pastor/blogger Terry Rayburn:
There are several problems with that essentially Legalistic view of Sanctification, as reflected in the following observations:
1) Our flesh cannot get better. In Romans 7:18 Paul wrote, “For I know that NOTHING good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh…” Your flesh cannot be improved. Flesh is flesh, and spirit is spirit.
2) Our new nature, on the other hand cannot get better, because it has already been made new and perfect through regeneration. We have been given a “new heart” (new nature, or new spirit), and not a defective one, which would be absurd. This new spirit has been made “one spirit with Him” (1 Corinthians 6:17), such that when we “walk according to the Spirit” (i.e., the Holy Spirit), we also walk according to our own new spirit.
3) Those who deal with Sanctification by zeroing in on so-called “Progressive” Sanctification as the main point of Sanctification, are at best in Kindergarten.
Therefore, if one carefully examines the words used by Reformed teachers, they rarely, if ever state specifically that we actually change as born again people. If we are totally depraved, how can we really change? Obviously, we can’t. Therefore, when Reformed academics seem to say that we change, that’s not what they really mean. “Spiritual Transformation” is the term most often used. Or, “Christ is formed in you.” In other words, we somehow manifest a spirit realm without really changing ourselves. Admittedly, I do not have the Reformed details of how this works nailed down completely, but without a doubt, the answer will be found in a deeper understanding of Gnosticism itself. Again, it’s obvious that the totally depraved do not change.
Reformed theology is a form of Gnostic antinomianism that has plagued the church from the beginning when Satan said to Eve, “Has God really said….,” and claimed to have a higher knowledge called “good and evil.” The goal for the believer is justification—not Paul’s imperative to make it our goal to please God. Pleasing God can’t be the goal because we are not free to aggressively obey and apply the word of God to our lives lest we unwittingly, as discussed in part 2, “make sanctification the ground of our justification.” Reformed theology promises to be a greater danger to the church than any cult would ever dream of. It must be exposed.
Anytime that aggressive sanctification is circumvented, lack of assurance fills the void—the Apostle Peter makes this clear in the first chapter of his second epistle. Also, the world is not impressed with a philosophy of incompetence among God’s people—they will not be convinced that he who fathers the inept can save their souls.
I will finish with a last word on the question by a reader that prompted this three-part article. Part of the question concerned the perseverance of the saints. This, of course, is tied closely with the subject of assurance. Unfortunately, false assurance or lack thereof will be rampant in Reformed circles because of the circumvention of free and aggressive sanctification. Like many other aspects of the Christian life, perseverance is a joint colaboring with God. The effort is many faceted. First, God promises to keep us (Jude 24). But that doesn’t mean we have no role in the process. God’s commands are to us, not the Holy Spirit. Secondly, God controls circumstances in order to prevent us from falling (John 18:4-9, 1Cor. 10:13). This indicates that theoretically we could fall away, but He intervenes in circumstances so that we are able to bear it. So, whatever he allows to happen—we can bear it. Thirdly, applying the word of God to our lives builds up our ability to persevere (James 1:2, but especially Matthew 7:24-27). Fourthly, God encourages us by promising rewards for perseverance (James 1:12, Rev. 2:26). But much more could be added here. God’s word and its life applications are deep and rich—not narrow according to Reformed theology.
Lastly, Reformed theology is works salvation by antinomianism, and its practical application, what there is of it, is Gnosticism. The Apostle Paul said that if anyone comes preaching another gospel, “let them be accursed.” And I say amen to that, and I really don’t care what their names are.
paul
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch .
Paul,
The saddest part of all this is that you actually seem to believe this garbage you write.
Randy,
Wow! What a profound rebuttal. Now it is really easy for me to believe that you graduated from Westminster.
Here is what I think is so amusing about Calvinism. You have a “choice” when you are supposedly wrong. But no “choice” when you are supposedly right. It is that thinking that breeds the arrogance we are seeing so much of these days.
Thank you so much Paul. I have enjoyed reading your answers to my questions. You really seem to understand what the neo-calvinists are teaching. God will bless you for your ministry. I know this takes up alot of your time, but the neo calvinists movement needs to be exposed for what it is. Calvinism appeals to the intellect and negates the simplicity of the gospel and is odious to our Savior. I know you have heard of the elephant in the room, well I think we also have a snake in the grass, who is deceiving even the saved. God bless you!
Calvinism appeals to the intellect because the Word of God appeals to the intellect. The proper order is intellect, then emotions, then will. Much of so called Christianity appeals to emotions first, then will and never intellect. God made us rational beings for a reason. He wants us to think. When we think properly about God’s truth, our emotions will invariably be affected if we have a heart for God. Such an emotional response will move us to make right choices. Paul put it this way working backwards from the will to the intellect, “You obeyed (the will), from the heart (emotions), that form of doctrine (intellect) unto which you have been handed over.”
Lydia,
That didn’t make a lick of sense. Could you explain what you are trying to say?
Suppose I could show you many citations in which Reformed theologians affirm their belief in the new birth, (better regeneration since “new birth is only one of the metaphors used for regeneration), would that convince you that the statement “There isn’t a theology on earth that is more wrong than Reformed theology for many reasons including the denial of the new birth” is a lot of hogwash? Saying the basis of our justification is not God’s work in us, does not mean God does not work in us. Roman Catholicism teaches we are justified through the infused grace of Christ. Defining grace as “enablement” they teach that we can, with Christ enablement, arrive, through works of obedience and keeping the sacraments, at a level of righteousness that merits God’s declaration of righteousness. To state that the basis of our right standing before God is not such infused righteousness but a righteousness that is imputed to us; a righteousness that is not our own.
Randy, Pleeeeeaaaaasssse leave me alone. This is the same worn out Reformed response I have heard for years. “New birth” doesn’t mean “new birth.” How could it? We are TOTALLY DEPRAVED and righteousness remains OUTSIDE OF US lest grace is “INFUSED.” How does that = “new birth” in any way, shape, or form? Only because your new birth is a “realm” or “manifestation” or “Christ transformation.” look at the Terry Rayburn quote in part two. What part of that is difficult to understand?
> —–Original Message—– >
I think all who have read him will agree that Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, John Murray, fell squarely within the camp of Reformed Theology. Professor Murray wrote, “God effects a change that is radical and all-pervasive, a change that cannot be explained in terms of any combination, permutation, or accumulation of human resources, a change which is nothing less than a new creation by him that calls the things that be not as though they were, who spake and it was done, who commanded and it stood fast. This, in a word, is regeneration.” Further he wrote of the believer, “He does not sin because God’s seed remains in him. Now this abiding seed alludes clearly to the divine impartation which took place in the divine begetting. It is this divine begetting with its abiding consequences that is the cause of not doing sin.”
Maybe it is just me, but it sounds as if Murray believed in regeneration.
Paul,
Your statement was that Reformed Theology rejects the new birth. That is simply an untrue statement. You may make a case that some with the camp of New Calvinism have departed from the Reformed view of regeneration, but the statement you made is patently untrue.
In my view, there is a difference between the biblical term “regeneration” and the work of the Spirit that is usually equated with that term as it is used in Systematic Theology. The word only occurs three times in the NT and is in at least two of those occurrences and perhaps in all three, used in reference to the era of the restoration of all things. The metaphors that are used for the work God performs in believers are several, e. g. birth, creation, circumcision, baptism, reception of sight, deliverance from the dungeon.
The term “regeneration” in Scripture does, indeed refer to a realm transfer. If we are in Christ, we belong to a new creation.
That said, there is no indication in those words that I would reject the idea that God performs a radical and life changing work in the lives of his chosen people that enables us not only to believe but also live a life that is pleasing to him.
It seems to me many of those who are commenting on your blog are the ones who deny the necessity of the new birth. If sinner’s possess a “free will” and have the innate ability to obey the call of the gospel, why do we need to be born of God? God’s fulfillment of his new covenant promises serves to cleanse us from [not merely forgive us for] our past transgressions and equip us to obey God in the future.
….ya, via Christ doing all of the work alone through his “active” obedience. Show me one noun and verb combination in his statement that states that we are changed and actually doing the work–ain’t there. Murray believed in double imputation of the passive/active obedience of Christ. Ie, Christ’s obedience was imputed as a substitution for our obedience in sanctification because sanctification is progressive justification and such is the only way that justification is not ‘legal fiction.”
> —–Original Message—– >
I suppose you would completely reject the idea of applying logic to this discussion, but let’s give it a shot anyway. If justification is based on a righteousness that is completely outside of us and this is what Reformed people believe, how could your statement “Reformed theology is works salvation by antinomianism. . . .” have any validity whatsoever. Those two ideas are absolutely contradictory. It can’t be “a righteousness outside ourselves” and “works salvation” at the same time.
I defy you to produce a quotation from Murray in which he said he believed “. . . in double imputation of the passive/active obedience of Christ. Ie, Christ’s obedience was imputed as a substitution for our obedience in sanctification because sanctification is progressive justification and such is the only way that justification is not ‘legal fiction.” There is no question Murray believed in double imputation as do I. What he did not believe is that Christ righteousness is imputed to us in sanctification so that we don’t need to obey.
Not so. When justification and sanctification are fused together, EVERYTHING you do in sanctification–no matter how passive–is participation in maintaining your “just standing.” In this case, sanctification by faith alone to maintain justification by faith alone. FAITH ALONE becomes a work that does not “break the link” between justification and glorification. Ie, salvation by Christ and His obedience + our faith alone minus our works in sanctification. Where do I begin to quote Reformed folks who say that moving on to anything other than sanctification by faith alone will cause us to lose our “just standing.”
> —–Original Message—– >
Which double imputation? passive/active…or…penalty/sin ? which one?
> —–Original Message—– >
Murray wrote, “We must not forget, of course,that our activity is enlisted to the fullest extent in the process of sanctification. But we must not rely on our own strength of resolution or purpose. It is when we are weak that we are strong.” Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, p. 147.
Like Murray, I use the terms preceptive and penal. I also believe in the imputation of both Adam’s guilt and nature to all whom he represented.
If one depends on his works of obedience to maintain his justification, he is lost and always has been. That doesn’t mean anyone but Christ maintains our justification. He stands as the Lamb slain. As long as he appears for our defense, we stand justified in God’s presence. Sanctification does not maintain anything and I don’t think anyone says it does. Produce a quote.
Justification and Sanctification are fused together in the sense that all who have been justified will also be sanctified, but not in the sense that the two works are equated. All true Reformed people, E.g. J. C. Ryle, have maintained the distinction between these two works of God.
Paul,
Could you tell me how you would define “righteousness?” How would a person determine whether he was righteous in God’s presence?
Hum? I guess you fell asleep.
Randy, Christians aren’t concerned with being righteous in “God’s presence.” We will not stand any such judgement that determines that in the future. we were declared righteous before the foundation of the earth and that can’t be effected by sanctification in any way. Nor is the law any longer the standard for justification for us.
> —–Original Message—– >
That wasn’t my question. Let me ask again. Could you tell me how you would define “righteousness?” How would a person determine whether he was righteous in God’s presence? Simple question. All I need is a simple answer.
BTW, still waiting on that quote from John Murray about Christ’s righteousness imputed to believers for sanctification so that we don’t have to obey personally.
Your avoiding the question. And as far as Murray, he hung with the Machen,Van Til, Vos gang. They were all mystical theological mad scientists. They even drive John Frame nuts, which is hard to do.
> —–Original Message—– >
Surely, since you are the guru on what Reformed people believe that quote must be at your fingertips. I thought you could have produced it by now. You spoke about it with such authority.
Hum, I think your a jackass.
> —–Original Message—– >
How did I avoid the question? Of course I believe in the idea that Christ obeyed all the precepts of the Law and died under the penalty of the Law.
Hanging with Machen, Vos, and Van Til is only a problem in your world.
ya, the activity of meditating on the same gospel that saved us. Even Tullian Techvidjian states that to be “hard work” in our sanctification by justification.
> —–Original Message—– >
Well, thank you very much. Jack asses have always been one of my favorite animals. Dependable, not easily spooked, smooth riding. Great animals. Now, please answer the questions.
I think you are off point. You need to admit that Murray, a Reformed Theologian, did not believe or teach what you have asserted. All I am asking you to do is be honest. Tough task but it might be good for your soul.
Murray is one of the major propagators of “DEFINITIVE SANCTIFICATION.” Here is one of many links: http://www.the-highway.com/definitive-sanctification_Murray.html What more needs to be said?
> —–Original Message—– >
Murray propagates definitive sanctification bozo brain. http://www.the-highway.com/definitive-sanctification_Murray.html
> —–Original Message—– >
You know, you stated before that you really liked and were well acquainted with the writings of J. C. Ryle. You are aware, are you not, that he was firmly entrenched in the Reformed tradition? Are you suggesting he was a Gnostic?
So does the Apostle Paul. What’s your point?
They were mystic wack cases. And Vos was an anti-Semite bar none.
> —–Original Message—– >
He also talks about progressive sanctification. There is no question believers have experienced a radical break with sin’s reigning power. That becomes the basis of progressive sanctification. Apart from definitive sanctificaiton, there is no basis for progressive sanctification.
Whether Vos was an anti-Seminte might be apart from the issue we are discussing. You might want to try to focus. Can you answer my question about righteousness?
yawn.
> —–Original Message—– >
LOL!
> —–Original Message—– >
If anyone cares to study what you just said–it will make my case.
> —–Original Message—– >
When a person resorts to name calling, it might indicate his argument is extremely weak. Try to focus and answer my question.
What that I just said makes your case?
You said you read my book. All of the answers you want from me are stated in there.
> —–Original Message—– >
I read it and as you may recall, I found it useless.
Again, you said you read my book. Every answer you are asking is stated in there–like, 2 or 3 pages for each.
> —–Original Message—– >
I don’t think you know the answers. Otherwise, you wouldn’t keep stalling. Not really a difficult question. Please try to answer.
Just for the record, answer me here.
Where did Murray ever suggest believers don’t need to obey Christ because sanctification is imputed to them?
Sigh. I really didn’t want to have to go back to moderating.
> —–Original Message—– >
You start moderating when you are too much of a coward to be honest and admit you have been lying about God’s people? The truth is, you know you are a liar and don’t want anyone else to find out.
I cover all of this in detail in my book which took months to write and of which you received a free copy–so you can kiss my sanctified backside.good night Randy.
> —–Original Message—– >
Just admit you are wrong and I will have a great deal more respect for you
Your book did nothing but misrepresent godly theologians. You need to stop being the accuser of the brethren. Satan already has that one covered.
D-E-f-I-N-I-T-I-V-E S-A-N-C-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N
> —–Original Message—– >
Your done Randy—good night.
> —–Original Message—– >
Good night Randy.
> —–Original Message—– >
Definitive sanctification does not mean believers don’t need to be obedient. It simply means sanctification is God’s work through the redemptive work of Christ. If you read the New Testament Scriptures, it is hard to miss that.
Good night Paul.
Honesty is a good thing. If you tried it, you might sleep better.
Calvin didn’t teach progressive justification and only an idiot would think he did.
Alrighty then.
> —–Original Message—– >
“Calvinism appeals to the intellect because the Word of God appeals to the intellect. ”
LOL!!! This is hysterical. Right. Jesus was really impressed with those learned intellectual Pharisees. That sermon on the mount was meant for the intellectual elite of Israel. Kinda embarassing Christianity appealed to so many ignorant peasants, too. But you Reformed guys took care of that for us by going along with the state church because they were so much smarter than the ignorant peasants. Yep, they understood the Word better which is why Reformed comes out of the state church tradition. .
“The proper order is intellect, then emotions, then will. Much of so called Christianity appeals to emotions first, then will and never intellect. God made us rational beings for a reason. He wants us to think. When we think properly about God’s truth, our emotions will invariably be affected if we have a heart for God. Such an emotional response will move us to make right choices. Paul put it this way working backwards from the will to the intellect, “You obeyed (the will), from the heart (emotions), that form of doctrine (intellect) unto which you have been handed over.””
But you are totally depraved and unable. That is not rational, Randy.
)
lydiasellerofpurple,
My dear you nailed it! Congratulations! You are a very smart woman!
Thank you very much for your insight.
Lydia,
Apparently you don’t believe peasants can be intelligent or think. Some of the most intelligent people I have known have been peasants. Thinking logically is not sinful. It is necessary to understand the Scriptures. Do we really believe Satan introduced logic and God wants us to remain illogical so that we might be spiritual? Perhaps the apostle Paul shouldn’t have used the word “Therefore” so much.
Randy,
Let me remind you (as well as the other followers of Johnny C) that I have gone back to moderating and you are on a short leash. So, if you get out of line, please don’t send me cry-baby emails about being censored.
You never get “crybaby” emails from me. All my point has ever been is that you seem to have difficulty when people raise questions you can’t answer. All I have ever wanted from you is for you to try to be honest. You seem to have great trouble with that.
You never get “crybaby” emails from me. All my point has ever been is that you seem to have difficulty when people raise questions you can’t answer. All I have ever wanted from you is for you to try to be honest. You seem to have great trouble with that. And who the heck is Johnny C?
Randy,
Uh, so, your very reply is a bunch of whining. “You’re never honest–wa,wa”
Just telling you the truth about yourself.
Randy,
I think it’s time for you to take another time out from PPT.