Paul's Passing Thoughts

The SBC is Being Completely Trashed by Authentic Calvinism

Posted in Uncategorized by paulspassingthoughts on December 20, 2012

tanc logo block

“Six months after Luther’s 95 Thesis launched the Reformation, he put doctrinal feet on the Reformation with his Heidelberg Disputation. It is a complete dressing down of any idea that the Christian has worth in the eyes of God. It defines love itself as something that ONLY seeks what has NO value to the seeker. Luther considered the idea that Christians could please God in sanctification—anathema. By feeding on God’s love (salvation) alone and thereby affirming our worthlessness, we pave a safe road to eternal life.”

 “If Christians grow in sanctification—the Reformation metaphysical construct falls. That’s why it’s efficacious to Reformed theology that you are a dead man walking. That is why it is important that everything is done by Christ for us.”

 “Reformation Light and its wimpy sanctification has the SBC on its deathbed. Now authentic Reformation doctrine is presiding over the SBC in the persona of Dr. Kevorkian.”    

Friends of PPT have been sending me some great links lately. I wish I could personally thank all of you, but I am really swamped right now. I click on all of them for general perusal, and one ended up getting me into a fray over at SBC Voices. I am a Southern Baptist, but really don’t rub shoulders with that crowd much since Susan and I do church at home and are extremely busy with this ministry and writing.

The fray yesterday was a real eye-opener in regard to how authentic Calvinism has infected the Convention. These are mean people folks. PPT continues to annoy as we learn better ways to articulate authentic Calvinism to the average Christian. Though perpetual re-salvation (progressive justification) is a description that is somewhat oversimplified, it’s an idea that most Christians can grasp and is an attention-getter. After all, the need to preach the gospel to ourselves everyday must have something behind it.

Something is changing. I don’t know how much this ministry has to do with it, but those who know something isn’t right, but can’t articulate it, are beginning to. The wolverine is being tied down and examined, and when that happens it’s not pretty. In one scathing review of me personally and the newly published False Reformation, a Reformed pastor stated the following:

My concern is not for those who have theological understanding; they will be able to see through Paul’s erroneous reasoning right away. My concern is for those who have so little biblical and theological instruction as to be able to discern the errors in Mr. Dohse’s arguments.

Get the picture fellow Average Joe Christians? Reading Paul Dohse’s ideas is something that shouldn’t be done at home by the ignorant totally depraved masses. In fact, in the book, I quote Southern Seminary president Al Mohler:

The main means by which God saves his people from ignorance is the preaching and teaching of the word of God. That’s why a conference like this is so important. It’s not just because we think of the pastorate as a profession set alongside other professions so that we can gather together for a little professional encouragement to go out and be a little better at what we do.

No, we’re here because we believe that those who teach and preach the word of God are God-appointed agents to save God’s people from ignorance [1]. (p.8).

And trust me, the good ole’ boys over at SBC Voices get that message loud and clear. I lay the vast majority of SBC problems at the feet of the Reformation. Because the Reformation was predicated on anti-new birth, Reformed Light propagated wimpy sanctification (including inept theological instruction for parishioners) and an overemphasis on getting people saved rather than making disciples. Sanctification was devalued. It wasn’t deemed important. My wife Susan addressed this at last year’s conference, and her words should be well noted. The following is a conversation she had with her Christian father shortly after a funeral they attended:

“Mrs. Coleman said, At least, he was saved. Can a person be a little bit saved and still go to heaven?” I asked. “Honey, there are all kinds of opinions on whether Lovell was saved. And God has final say in the matter, not the preacher.” I have heard that phrase many times at funerals or when speaking of someone who died. “Well, at least he was saved.” So Lovell lived like the devil, but at least he had his fire insurance policy, made effective because he walked the aisle, said the sinner’s prayer, and was baptized in the Big Sandy River. But I will have to agree with my dad. Only God really knows if Lovell was genuinely saved or not and resting in the bosom of Abraham. At my funeral, I hope more will be said about me than “at least, she was saved.”

And….

I encourage you pastors, teachers, and parents to obey Scripture and teach the dreaded D word: doctrine. Deuteronomy 6:6-9, “The Lord spoke to Moses and to us, and you must commit yourself wholeheartedly to these commands that I am giving you today. Repeat them again and again to your children. Talk about them when you are at home and when you are away on a journey, when you are lying down, and when you are getting up again. Tie them to your hands as a reminder. Wear them on your forehead. Write them on the doorpost of your house and on your gates. It is vital to know and to teach doctrine as we all follow the great commission. Go and make disciples.

The latest resurgence of authentic Calvinism in the SBC is going to finish the job; Calvinism Light says, “sanctification is not important.” Authentic Calvinism says, “What the heck are you talking about??? There isn’t any such thing as sanctification at all!” Six months after Luther’s 95 Thesis launched the Reformation, he put doctrinal feet on the Reformation with his Heidelberg Disputation. It is a complete dressing down of any idea that the Christian has worth in the eyes of God. It defines love itself as something that ONLY seeks what has NO value to the seeker. Luther considered the idea that Christians could please God in sanctification—anathema. By feeding on God’s love (salvation) alone and thereby affirming our worthlessness, we pave a safe road to eternal life.

Look, authentic Calvinism in the form of the latest resurgence, New Calvinism, will do what it always does—it will die a social death. But not before it will leave the SBC in ruins. Reformation Light and its wimpy sanctification has the SBC on its deathbed. Now authentic Reformation doctrine is presiding over the SBC in the form of Dr. Kevorkian. We will go from weak sanctification to no sanctification while, in their own words, “feeding on justification” for what they deceptively call “progressive sanctification.” The two ideas presented in this paragraph can clearly be seen from a link that I was sent by a PPT friend just yesterday. The blog author is a New Calvinist heavyweight, and the candid information on his blog speaks to what I am saying here specifically. The name of the blog is, “Gospel Shaped Living: exploring the completeness of Christ for us.” In other words, we don’t change, the shape of our life does (or the realm), and Christ, via our faith alone, obeys “for us” in sanctification. That’s the only thing that can make our sanctification, “complete.”

But as I was informed yesterday by the Calvinist bubbas over at Voices, you can’t draw any conclusions from a title; ie, Calvin really wasn’t saying that justification is progressive when he entitled 3.14 “The Beginning of Justification. In What Sense Progressive.” And no, I didn’t forget a question mark in that title. I was also informed by another Reformed guru yesterday that when Calvin stated that Christ’s death has a perpetual efficacy for the church (Isnt: 3.14.11)—that Calvin didn’t mean “perpetual” in a perpetual way, per se. Good grief. But here is something interesting from the post that was sent to me from the aforementioned blog:

Let me be clear.  I am grateful for the working of God to renew Gospel focus across so many denominations and churches.  It was just not so 30 years ago.  The Gospel was the entry message for the Christian life, and after that, it was all law.  I preached that way for the first ten years of ministry, until God sent a messenger to correct me.  Now it seems every day a new book is published applying the Gospel to another area of life!

Well, where did it go prior to “30 years ago”? Actually, the conception of the resurgence was in 1970 officially, compliments of the Seventh-Day Adventist  Awakening Movement that in fact rediscovered the true Reformation gospel of EVERYTHING sola fide. A fact many in the Convention are not overly excited to discuss.

Also, note his outright admission that salvation as an “entry” only was a problem prior to the rediscovery, and if salvation is only a “entry”, everything after that is “law.” Obviously, salvation must continue in order for everything not to be about law. This also speaks to the Reformed idea that law continues to be the standard for justification after salvation, and salvation by faith alone must therefore continue in order for that not to be the case. This is a huge problem. And also note that it is the same gospel that saved us that is applied to “another area of life” rather than a many-faceted biblical wisdom of learn and do discipleship. Note that’s “law.” So, is applying the same gospel that saved us to every area of life complicated? Of course it is—that’s why you need them. Also note that “books” are being written that reveal more ways of doing this “30 years” later!

The New Calvinist construct that was derived from authentic Reformed doctrine is dualism. It is knowledge of God’s holiness as set against our sinfulness. It is the good old fashioned knowledge of good and evil introduced in the garden. If Christians grow in sanctification—the Reformation metaphysical construct falls. That’s why it’s efficacious to Reformed theology that you are a dead man walking. That is why it is important that everything is done by Christ for us. That’s why it is important to always search the heart for revealed sin that supposedly makes God bigger and us smaller. But with all false doctrines—they implode—they cave-in on themselves. This is because we are wired to eventually act on what we believe; logic will eventually act on its presuppositions. Hence, the author states the following in the same post:

What I read on one side of this debate is pretty much advocating an endless monitoring of the state of my heart.  Am I resting in Christ’s work for me?  Am I feeding on my justification?

This seems to be a new legalism, an internal one.  It is getting the functional Gospel right in my heart.  I dare not do anything until I do so.

“Oh my, I obeyed, but I did so with a trace of self-righteousness.  I need to make sure that does not happen again!”

“Dear me, I sought to please God but there was some self-sufficiency in that obedience, and I must repent and try to get it right next time.”

This paralyzes people.  I think it is contrary to the apostolic method.

Paul reminds people of the objective truth of the Gospel.  Then he calls them to act upon it.  He does not call them to endlessly work on making sure they are getting the function of the Gospel correct before they do anything.

Putting the last two ideas together, I can begin the day with words like these: “I believe my righteousness is in Christ and his work, and his work alone.  Nothing can change that.  God is at work in me too, to make me like his Son.”  Then I go into the day.  Perhaps I remind myself of these things along the way.  But I live based on objective affirmation of faith, not the quality of my resting in Christ.

Basically, meditate on the gospel, and whatever Christ might decide to do is “objective confirmation.” Anything that is within us is subjective. That is why this doctrine is often referred to as the objective gospel completely outside of us. But at any rate, people are always going to do something based on what they believe, and in this case, as the author notes, the endeavor to become more and more aware of how wicked we are becomes a new legalism in, and of itself. This is the futility of false doctrine—it usually becomes what it so vehemently opposes. Though the author’s solution is just more Reformed cognitive dissonance, he touches on what I saw yesterday at Voices. On steroids.

The post I addressed is a short one:

“Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God” (Heb. 3:12).

Search your heart oh friend

Hear this stanza

Repent of your hidden sin

Bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within

The loudest statement made by Adam Lanza on December 14, 2012  was, “Jesus is not Lord!”  Although he did not verbalize this statement, he emphatically affirmed it by murdering his mother at her home and 26 other people (6 adults and 20 young children) at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  Then he further rebelled against his Creator and Sustainer by taking his own life.

Search your heart oh friend

Hear this stanza

Repent of your hidden sin

Bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within

This rebellion against the rule and reign of Christ is taking place all around us as men, women, and children unashamedly sin against their Creator.  The question is whether or not you and I have the same rebellious heart (although we may express our rebellion differently), that led Adam Lanza to commit this horrid act of rebellion against God and His Word.

Search your heart oh friend

Hear this stanza

Repent of your hidden sin

Bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within

The sad reality is that every time you and I sin, we rebel against the Lordship of Christ.  The answer for such rebellion is that we must continually repent and affirm the gospel, pursuing holiness with all our might while pleading the blood of the King of kings and Lord of lords alone!  In other words, we must continually bring the Adam Lanza within to Justice (God) by trusting in Christ, forever reminding ourselves that our sins have been judged in Christ.  Therefore, although we are guilty of emphatically proclaiming “Jesus is not Lord,” on the cross God treated Christ as if He was the rebel so that the rebellious could go free!  How will you respond?  Will you bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within?

Search your heart oh friend

Hear this stanza

Repent of your hidden sin. . .

The obvious suggestion of this post would find agreement with authentic Reformed mentality—even totally depraved Christians still have a propensity to murder children in cold blood for no apparent reason. There is no difference between our sin and the sin of the unregenerate. This makes God look bigger, and us smaller. This is Reformed epistemology. Notice that we are to continually search for inner sins that we need to, “Bring to Justice.” This is perpetual justification. Obviously. The New Calvinists in the SBC teach this, but deny it when confronted—even in the face of the obvious. When confronted, they defied reality itself without even blushing:

What you propagate here is a New Calvinist progressive justification.

I’m advocating progressive sanctification, not progressive justification.

You say plainly that progressive sanctification is by the blood of Christ. So, are [you] not saying that the justifying blood is the source of our sanctification?

The justifying and sanctifying blood of Christ is the source of our sanctification. The Holy Spirit gradually conforms us to Christ.

Are you saying that the finished work of Christ is not the source of our sanctification?

 YES JARED, that’s exactly what I am saying. How is a finished work the source of what’s progressive? This was Paul’s specific beef with the Galatians. Justification is not the source of sanctification–the two are separate. This was Dr. Jay E. Adams’ specific argument against the contemporary father of New Calvinism, Dr. John Miller (Sonship Theology) in his book, “Biblical Sonship: a Biblical Evaluation.”

Paul, I’m not saying that justification is the source of sanctification. You’re saying I’m saying this regardless what I say. Offer your position from Scripture. Tell us what the source is for sanctification.

The “blood” represents Christ’s death on the cross for our justification. We were justified by it. You said that we are both justified and sanctified by His blood: “Paul, It is by the blood of Christ that we are justified and sanctified.” How can you now say that–that’s not what you are saying? But to answer your question: the new birth now powers our progressive sanctification, NOT THE OTHER.

Paul, the blood represents Christ’s death on the cross for our justification AND sanctification. We live by faith in the Son of God (Gal. 2:20). We are ever dependent on His finished work. The list of Scripture can go on and on. I’m saying that the work of Christ is the source for both our justification and sanctification, not that our justification is the source of our sanctification.

Paul, my point is that the source is the same not that justification and sanctification are the same. We are progressively sanctified by pursuing holiness while possessing faith in Christ.

Once again, no one is saying that we are sanctified by our justification. We live by faith in the Son of God. We do not look within for our sanctification, we look to Christ alone….So, tell us what you believe is the source of our sanctification if not the work of Christ.

NOT His finished work on the cross, of course, He works in our sanctification through the Holy Spirit, but that DOES NOT = “preaching the cross to ourselves everyday” because we still need to be justified by it.

Paul, I don’t think you can separate the Holy Spirit’s work in our hearts from the work of Christ. No one I’ve seen is arguing that we must continually be justified. You’re building up and tearing down a strawman.

….you say in the post that Christian sin must be continually brought to justice by the blood. That’s not progressive justification? It also makes the law the present affirmation of our just standing when the Scriptures plainly say that we are justified apart from the law. Here is what you wrote:  “In other words, we must continually bring the Adam Lanza within to Justice (God) by trusting in Christ…How will you respond? Will you bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within?” I mean, are you saying that you were not using “justice” in a justifying way? Please explain.

Paul, I meant it exactly as Heb. 3:12 describes. We must continually trust in Christ alone for our salvation, making our calling and election sure as we live by faith in the Son of God. We are justified by His blood at the moment we first believe, and if we have been justified, we will continue believing. We must indeed confess ourselves sins while enjoying His forgiveness, not for justification but sanctification. We bring our sins to Justice (God) forever acknowledging our sins have been judged in Christ. Once again, we live by faith in the Son of God. The same blood that justifies us also sanctifies us.

I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain your position. You do not believe Christ’s work is the source of our sanctification, so what is?

The new birth is the source of our sanctification, not the blood which you use to replace, “justification.” Your New Calvinist position is a continual offering of the works of Christ in sanctification by faith alone. Southern Baptists have never believed in sanctification by faith alone because the law is still a standard for our justification in sanctification.

Key is your statement: “We must continually trust in Christ alone for our salvation, making our calling and election sure as we live by faith in the Son of God.” That’s not how the Scriptures say we make our calling and election sure (SPEAKING OF ASSURANCE). It states that we are to ADD to our faith for that purpose–it’s not by faith in the works of Christ ALONE that we gain assurance.

It’s not keeping our own salvation by faith alone. Our faith is already KEPT. It’s leaving the foot of the cross and aggressively pursuing the fruits of righteousness.

[As an addendum, note: “We must continually trust in Christ alone for our salvation, making our calling and election sure as we live by faith in the Son of God.” We “must” and “continually”” live by faith.” As I argue often, there is NO must to keeping anything for our salvation—not even faith which we cannot lose once God has granted it to us as a gift].

Paul, so what does the Apostle Paul mean when he says, “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me” (Gal. 2:20)? All I’m advocating is that Christians live by faith in the Son of God. We pursue holiness, putting on the new man, while constantly possessing faith in the Son of God.

We are not sanctified by our works. Also, you can claim that Southern Baptists have “never” believed what I’m advocating, but I would argue that the majority believe like I do.

We gain assurance by looking at the Holy Spirit’s fruit in our lives. This truth CANNOT be separated from living by faith in the Son of God. You cannot separate the Spirit’s work from the Son’s work. Christ’s work is the basis of both our justification and our sanctification. We pursue holiness while possessing consistent faith in Christ. We cannot separate the two. You seem to be separating the two.

1. What did Paul mean in Galatians 2:20? A word for justification appears 6 times between verses 15 and 21. 3:1-3 makes it clear that the context is works salvation by attempting to earn justification through a work that is finished. Verse 3 means literally, “are you reaching your end (glorification) by effort.” This coincides with Romans 8:29, 30. Paul’s argument is that they are trying to work towards a goal that is already finished. When we were unsaved, we were in the flesh and under the law–now we are dead to the law and the life we live in the flesh is sustained by Christ because the flesh involves law. Our justified state is by faith alone, and we are dead to the law. But you make this apply to sanctification as well. “Sanctification” is a biblical word and appears nowhere in this text, but “justification” does no less than 6 times. The crux of Paul’s point is verse 21: “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if justification were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

So then, if sanctification is in these verses, then we cannot make an effort to keep the law in sanctification. We are also dead to the law in sanctification in the same way we are in justification. Therefore, we are dead in sanctification in the same way we are in justification, and Christ must keep the law for us in sanctification. And granted–that is the New Calvinist doctrine.

2. “We are not sanctified by our works.” Yes we are. Paul said that God’s will was our sanctification, and then described it as “abstaining” from…. Our enabled efforts in sanctification by all means does sanctify us (a setting apart from the world), and our end judgment will be for rewards, not to judge “the ground of our justification.”

3. “Christ’s work is the basis of both our justification and our sanctification. We pursue holiness while possessing consistent faith in Christ. We cannot separate the two. You seem to be separating the two.”

Yes, absolutely, I am separating the two. As can be seen by your above statement, if the two are fused together, I must maintain my justification in the same way that I was saved. This makes faith a work for the purpose of keeping our salvation. This is why JC Ryle stated the following: “But the plain truth is, that men will persist in confounding two things that differ–that is, justification and sanctification….What God has divided let us not mingle and confuse.”

How many times do I have to say that no one is infusing justification and sanctification together. Ya’ll are reading your own presuppositions into these men and my article.

How can you say you don’t fuse the two together when you posited Galatians 2:20 to make your point about faith alone for sanctification? Though the text doesn’t speak of sanctification, you say that “the life I now live” speaks to sanctification while the context of the passage is clearly justification. How can this be Jared? Jared, you said that OUR sins needed to be sought out and justified by Christ in the present through the blood. That’s what you You said. Words mean things.

Paul, where did I say that our sins must be sought out and justified? I didn’t you say it; you won’t find it. I said that our sins must be brought to Justice (God), not justified. There’s a difference. Once again, you need to take the time to actually understand what people are arguing before you throw around words like “heretic.”

You may consider the obtuse contradictions following by the author of the post at Voices:

“The justifying and sanctifying blood of Christ is the source of our sanctification.”  ≠ “Paul, I’m not saying that justification is the source of sanctification.”

“No one I’ve seen is arguing that we must continually be justified. You’re building up and tearing down a strawman.” ≠ “In other words, we must continually bring the Adam Lanza within to Justice (God) by trusting in Christ…How will you respond? Will you bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within?”

“We cannot separate the two. You seem to be separating the two.” ≠ “How many times do I have to say that no one is infusing justification and sanctification together. Ya’ll are reading your own presuppositions into these men and my article.”

“Paul, where did I say that our sins must be sought out and justified? I didn’t you say it; you won’t find it. I said that our sins must be brought to Justice (God), not justified. There’s a difference.” ≠

Repent of your hidden sin

Bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within

I have said it before and I will say it again: corresponding with these yo-yos is a total waste of time. I do it for educational and ministry purposes, but no resolution or unity will ever be accomplished by trying to reason with these people. Personally, I don’t even take them seriously anymore. God’s people need to come out from among them at all cost. That’s where all of this is going anyway.

Again, the movement will die a social death as it has five times prior to today after Calvin’s Geneva theocracy. The rise and fall of those movements will be documented in the second volume of The Truth About New Calvinism. But concerning the carnage that will be left behind before the next decline into insignificance; a pity. The goal of this ministry is to educate God’s people in hopes of accomplishing the following to whatever degree we can in our little corner of the universe: hastening its inevitable death, and preventing its return.

paul

About these ads

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 20, 2012 at 7:57 pm

    Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.

  2. trust4himonly- Faith said, on December 20, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Hey Paul I was on there too yesterday- saw your posts and posted as well. In fact, had Jarod tell me that the Word of God would judge me and another tell me I was on “dangerous ground” for leaving church. These men are definitely are hard ones to deal with because of their double speak. You can’t pin them down because just like our politicians they will just turn around and say they did not say or do what they just said. I was just about to say it is a cop out, but I do not think it is – it is a deliberate attempt to confuse and decieve those who are under their care. Just like in that blog you posted in, Murray finds some false teaching and then Tullian comes on and says that was not what he meant to say. Clear as a bell- no condemnation and Murray then looks like the fool. Do we dare correct the celebrity pastor? See they get off scott free, but yet many are scratching their heads knowing something is not quite right; but before they get it in their heads that something is wrong it is too late. You are too deep in the system to be able to safely get out. You knew that too well and so did many others.

  3. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 20, 2012 at 9:21 pm

    t4h

    Did you see this part? LOL!:

    You may consider the obtuse contradictions following by the author of the post at Voices:

    “The justifying and sanctifying blood of Christ is the source of our sanctification.” ≠ “Paul, I’m not saying that justification is the source of sanctification.”

    “No one I’ve seen is arguing that we must continually be justified. You’re building up and tearing down a strawman.” ≠ “In other words, we must continually bring the Adam Lanza within to Justice (God) by trusting in Christ…How will you respond? Will you bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within?”

    “We cannot separate the two. You seem to be separating the two.” ≠ “How many times do I have to say that no one is infusing justification and sanctification together. Ya’ll are reading your own presuppositions into these men and my article.”

    “Paul, where did I say that our sins must be sought out and justified? I didn’t you say it; you won’t find it. I said that our sins must be brought to Justice (God), not justified. There’s a difference.” ≠

    Repent of your hidden sin

    Bring to Justice the Adam Lanza within

  4. Argo said, on December 20, 2012 at 10:14 pm

    Paul,
    That was awesome. It is amazing to see them continue to equivocate back and forth, like a surreal tennis match with themselves. They run all over the court trying to hit the ball from both sides. It’s two people, but one people, two sides, but the same side. Metaphysical and moral contradictions define their theology, and it would be funny if it wasn’t so destructive to man and God.

    By the way, that seems to be the new neo Cal platform: you are building up your own straw man just to tear him down.

    It is a dreadfully strange philosophy, isn’t it?

  5. trust4himonly said, on December 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    Oh yeh…..
    It burned me up yesterday, i was really getting mad because so many are in these churches not knowing what is what? I remember I would hear these contradictions in my one church and go “what”? and then say to myself “well, maybe I did not quite get what they were saying”.
    On the SBC blog, while they were saying these things about sanctification not fused with justification, they were then telling me I was on dangerous ground for not attending a “church”. So what does this dangerous ground mean? hmmm….danger of going to hell???

    “Bring to Justice (with a CAPITAL J) the Adam Lanza within” is clearly “a continual process of Christ working besides ourselves (our depravity)” not a already sealed with the Holy Spirit and Him sanctifying and making us more like Him each and everyday as we walk with Him.. As we can tell, there is hardly a mention of the Holy Spirit and His transforming us to Christs likeness and that we have a responsibility in OUR SANCTIFICATION to please God. Oh you mean we can actually please God?- yes we can! When a pastor or teacher attempts to take that responsibility away – this is “Christian” socialism. When we work in our sanctification, we will find joy and satisfaction in pleasing Christ- this IS what a relationship is. Even in a marriage we have to work at it to please our spouse. it is no different with God. This theme is continually reverberated throughout the OT and NT, but see this is where the Calvinist will try to trick the believer that Christ is in every verse to take out any human involvement with God whatsoever!

  6. trust4himonly said, on December 20, 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Oh Paul here is another contradiction- what about all these guys whether Calvinist, Arminianist, or emergent mixing together in these conferences- hmmmm…. YET, you will hear them rail against any of these guys privately. What a scam!
    What is scary is how they are moving into the Catholic arena and redefining what faith is.

  7. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 20, 2012 at 11:29 pm

    The will go back to the momma church–only a matter of time–same presupposition concerning mankind.

  8. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 20, 2012 at 11:34 pm

    Right. And again, Luther scoffed at the idea that Christians could please God. The key to totally understanding these wackos is the Heidelberg disputation. Frankly, an Islamist terrorist could have written it just as well.

  9. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 20, 2012 at 11:50 pm

    Argo,
    It’s almost like they think they are Obi-Wan Kenobi and they can talk to us he did the storm troopers: “Move along–it’s not what it seems–there is nothing here.”

  10. Andy said, on December 21, 2012 at 9:47 am

    Paul,

    Thank you for shedding the light of truth upon these fools and exposing them. They inadvertantly reveal their double-speak, and it becomes blatantly apparent to anyone with an ounce of discernement!

  11. lydiasellerofpurple said, on December 22, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Paul, I have been reading that particular YRR guy for a while now and he was simply trying to do a Piper shock jock piece. He even wrote a bible study on finding Jesus in Harry Potter. He is besotted with Piper. He was looking for something sensational to get everyone shocked that fit the Reformed paradigm. Now, we are all Adam Lanza’s. Only God is keeping you from mass murdering people today.

    Personally, I think he needs to turn himself in. If he has an “Adam Lanza within”, he is a danger to his family, hischurch where he pastors and society. The honest thing would be for him to commit himself now. I think this ridiculous hyperbole should be treated as a threat to others.

    I always get a kick out them claiming they are not saying what they are actually saying. This is a definite result of brainwashing. They spend so much time in their bubbles they cannnot see it. So, when it is presented to them in logical outcomes, they get nasty and claim you are the one who is ignorant of biblical truth. The reason is they never stop and think they might be wrong. They have been told they cannot be wrong. Great men have told them what to believe and what the bible is rreally teaching.

    And seriously, what would they do if they ever woke up from this brainwashing? Admit to people who have paid them to teach this junk they were wrong all along? What would they do? Go sell used cars?

    You know, I am starting to believe their words about THEMSELVES. That they are totally depraved “Christians” who can never be born again really….. who also make their living in ministry. The irony is chilling

  12. lydiasellerofpurple said, on December 22, 2012 at 11:47 am

    This is one reason they cannot stand NT Wright.

    While I do not agree with Wright on everything he gets it about living as a Christian.

  13. lydiasellerofpurple said, on December 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    From the link Glenn left on another thread. Here is part of the preface of this former Calvinists book:

    http://www.xcalvinist.com/category/prelims-preface/

    ***This leads to my second point: Realize that a Calvinist and Non-Calvinist do not share the same meaning of words. This is true even though probably neither one of them realizes they do not share meaning. Remember, Calvinism is merely the invoking of associative meaning, not real meaning. By “not real” I mean that the meaning is destroyed in the overall thought of the clause or sentence. For, of course, at one level the Calvinist understands the general meaning of words. But when he strings them together in such a way that it forms an idea that is false, then at another level he overthrows the meaning of such words.* For example, when a Calvinist uses the term ‘God’ in defending the absolute sovereignty of God, he is making nonsense statements. This is what I used to do as a Calvinist. I liken these non-sense statements, or propositions, to the riding of a rocking horse. As a Calvinist rider, I would throw my weight forward toward my belief in the absolute sovereignty of God until I could go no further, whereupon I would recoil backwards toward my belief in human freedom. Thus I would go back and forth in seesaw motion, lest on the one hand I find myself accusing God of insufficient sovereignty, or on the other hand find myself accusing God of authoring sin. All the while, there remained an illusion of movement towards truth, when in fact there was no real movement at all. At length I would allow the springs of dialectical tension to rest the rocking horse in the center, and then I would declare as harmonious propositions which, in fact, were totally contradictory to each other. Calvinist riders still ride out this scenario. This is why, among the Calvinistic writings of Van Til, Sproul, Boettner, A.W. Pink, etc., there are no unqualified statements about the absolute sovereignty of God or the free will of man. If one reads long enough, all-forthright statements about them are eventually withdrawn by qualifying each statement with its exact opposite thought. This explains why every book and article advocating the absolute sovereignty of God ends with its terms unconcluded (though of course Calvinists claim them concluded). So when John Piper tells Calvinists to never mind logic and experience but to make the argument a textual issue every time, I must ask: Of what use is a ‘textual’ issue if the text has been deconstructed to a point where words have no definition, i.e., where the text is not a text? Calvinism is thus revealed as Zen philosophy (I’m not exaggerating), dressed up in Christian-sounding terms which merely evoke associations of meaning, not real meaning. (And so under Calvinism all terms of individuation are lost in favor of an illusory One.)

  14. paulspassingthoughts said, on December 22, 2012 at 3:43 pm

    Lydia,
    Can’t add anything to what you have said here. But I will emphasize one point: right, they are never going to admit wrong. Too late. For instance, the elders who divided my family would have to admit they did it under the auspices of erroneous doctrine and logic. I mean, really, what are they going to do? $40,000 dollars, a 24-year marriage, and 3 years without my son living with me later, “Gee, we are sorry, we screwed up.” Right. And times me times who knows how many. I wouldn’t be in their shoes for all the tea in China.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 129 other followers

%d bloggers like this: