New Calvinists Don’t Play Well With Others
For some time, this blog has been harassed by a New Covenant theologian from Costa Rica. He has not only harassed me which I am accustomed to anyway, but he has also harassed my readers with endless circular arguments that are typical of New Calvinists. He has also showed hostility towards those who disagree with him which is also part of the New Calvinist mode of operation.
This post is sort of an apology as well to my readers. I am a layman and not much of an IT guy, so between working/writing/husbanding/fathering and not knowing all the ends and outs of web stuff—it took me awhile to figure out how to blacklist him from the site. I know, moderating mode is easy, but that’s also TIME that I don’t have. We will see if my new tweaking of the blog settings will work.
However, this all brings back to mind how hostile, condescending, and elitist New Calvinists are in general. This comes from two sources: One; New Calvinists think they are completing the original Reformation. In their minds, literally, today’s gospel narrative in the “ongoing redemptive drama” is the same as it was during the great Reformation. They are Luther’s children and I will give you three wild guesses as to who we are. Secondly; they resent the fact that evangelicals have supposedly led myriads into hell because of the separation of justification and sanctification; specifically, some of their own relatives. When they talk about “justification by faith,” let me give you a heads-up fellow evangelical—they are talking about sanctification also: “The same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us.” What do you think they are saying when they say that? Please, words mean things—start listening to them and stop assuming you know what they are saying!
Look, this mentality came directly from the Australian Forum. Everything is either Rome or the Reformers—the subjective gospel or the objective gospel. Listen to the contemporary NC crowd carefully and you will hear them say it all the time. Piper said it while commenting on Goldsworthy’s lecture at Southern seminary. On the one hand, they’re Reformers that will go down in church history, on the other, Roman Catholicism is behind every bush. It’s visions of grandeur on steroids.
This mentality is driving the hostile takeover of many ministries, ie, Coral Ridge as one example, and rampant elder abuse of parishioners. Parishioners in New Calvinist churches may rape pillage and steel, but don’t you dare question doctrine. In one particular case in a well-known NC church , a parishioner sent a letter to an excommunicated individual (same church) who questioned doctrine; the parishioner stated that she knew why he was targeted, and that she was not only a member in good standing, but living with her boyfriend out of wedlock under the full knowledge of the elders. I saw the letter. After all, we are all totally depraved anyway, right?
This mentality can be seen among their leaders on a national level. The wagons have been circled around CJ Mahaney for the exact aforementioned abuse I am talking about. It is my understanding from people who follow that venue that the website SGM Survivors . Com has been up for four years while John MacArthur, Al Mohler, and others clamor to hold events with him. His heavy handed squashing of detractors is irrelevant; “He has the gospel right.” Not that it mattered that much as I had only been there three times in about four years, and that at the behest of others, the Pyro blog blacklisted me for pointing out that Piper often flip-flops between justification and sanctification in his messages without any transitions. Frank Turk, a Pyro contributor, rebuked me for daring to “slander” Piper and said “to know Piper is to grasp Piper.” He also aped the often used you can’t criticize a NC unless you have read everything they have written routine. Of course, that would exclude any criticism of Piper because he has written about 600 books—all concerning the eternal depths of joy and proofs that God is a happy God which is supposedly a primary theme of Scripture as opposed to discussion about His holiness. The author of the blog, the insufferable Phil Johnson, bemoaned the fact that women had the audacity to criticize a teacher of “Piper’s stature” rather than being in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
I was in a Christian bookstore the other day and it occurred to me that other people telling Spirit filled Christians what God is saying to them is big business. The New Calvinists are making big bucks selling the idea that they are the new Reformers here to finish what Luther started (by the way, Luther’s contention with Rome was on a moral issue, [indulgences] not salvation by grace alone). And you’re either with them, or you are with the Romans. Character doesn’t matter, if CJ draws a crowd, CJ is too big to fail. Follow the money.
Enough is enough—Christians need to take the church back from New Calvinism. And by the way, Christ said, “On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” So, sometimes I wonder about this whole “Reformation” motif to begin with. Had Rome temporarily prevailed against God’s church? Don’t know, but I can tell you that I don’t believe it because a bunch of men say it’s true. And the “new” Reformation? Well, that’s definitely a stretch.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
“They are Luther’s children and I will give you three wild guesses as to who we are.”
The Anabaptists? :o)
Don’t get me started on the historical rewriting of the Reformation. I am a student of history and love this stuff and read widely. Sometimes my reading even takes me to laws passed by the petit council in Geneva during the Calvin years. Did you know they regulated the amount of courses Genevans could have at each meal?
It is amazing how ignorant young seminarians are on the subject because they are only directed to read what the victors wrote about it. Was a Reformation needed? Of course. But they forget it was simply an attempt to “Reform” the Catholic Church that did not work. If these Reformers were such brilliant theologians, why did they not see that transubstantiation was not biblical? Padeobaptism? A state church? (BTW: How can one believe in limited atonement/election/predestination and have magistrates that make you attend church? Wouldn’t that mean the unelect are in church?) Yet, they kept all these things and replaced the mass with preaching. Making the “pastor” the center of attention. Not Christ.
Just reading the 95 Thesis proves that Luther was railing mostly against the Pope and his indulgences. And they get very angry when one mentions the historical fact that the Nazi’s used Luther’s own writings about Jews to try and bring the church in line in the 1930’s.
The rewriting of the Reformation has cast it in this romantic theological light that did not exist. These were also men who were persecuting Anabaptists just as the Catholics were. Talk about people with no where to go and nothing to live on!
There are no perfect people in history but let’s at least tell the whole truth about them. That truth will wipe out the childish romanticizing that is going on now with the first Reformation.
There were people during this time risking their lives for adult believers baptism but all you will hear about them are the small fringe group in Munster. We rarely hear about the groups fleeing to live in caves to escape the Reformers who were forcing infant baptism. Read Marytrs Mirror sometime. It is a huge book I invested in to read of all the people “murdered” during those years by both Catholics and Reformers. One did not dare disagree with them.
Do we really want to romanticize such a Reformation? We can easily see the authoritarianism and control it requires and we are NOW seeing the same fruit in response for daring to disagree with the leaders today. These are some angry and arrogant men. Is history repeating itself? All I can say is I am thankful everyday we do not have church/state government anymore!
BTW: In my reading I came across an obscure book written by Leonard Verduin in 1951 with a grant from the Calvin Foundation. He traveled to Europe after the war when more archives were opened that previously had not been. The result was his book: The Reformers and Their Step Children.
Paul, you will love this quote from Verduin in his book:
“We meet in Luther [as well as the entire Reformed /Calvinist /Puritan tradition], to put it theologically, a very heavy emphasis on the forensic aspect of salvation and a correspondingly light emphasis on the moral aspect. Luther was primarily interested in pardon, rather than in renewal. His theology was a theology that addresses itself to the problem of guilt, rather than to the problem of pollution. There is an imbalance in this theology between what God does for man and what He does in man.”
The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, p. 12.
from: http://withchrist.org/verduin.htm
LikeLike
Lydia, Hmmm, yes, I do like it–and it sounds really familiar.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
So, Luther’s disagreement with the Catholic Church was not sola fide? Really? I agree that Luther wanted only to reform the Catholic Church but he wanted to do so with the understanding that it is only through Faith Alone in Christ Alone that anyone is saved! Luther was indeed not perfect and is not the standard for us to follow (no man or woman should be), we should only follow Christ. However, this one statement really left me saying…what? (and yes I have read several books by Luther)
LikeLike
Tim,
Luther also had huge problems with the book of James which he saw as “works” . Surely you know that. Luther got some things right, I would never deny that.. Surely you read where I agreed the Reformation was needed.
But, I was speaking of the entire Reformation in general and where it progressed…right back to the trap of power and position of mere men.
And please spare me the whine of “there are no perfect men”. I will settle for men who do not care one bit for power or position, live off the Gospel or seek to gain followers after themselves.
Or the constant refrain of “they were men of their time” (The excuse given for Driscoll today). But Menno Simms and Felix Mann were men of their time, too. What do we make of that? If we must raise the state-church Reformers up as brilliant theologians, we must answer why they insisted on the sacraments as a means of grace. Was it so the princes would fund them since the church was a means of control for the powers that be? Or did they really believe Jesus Christ was magically in that piece of bread?
So, from your reading of Luther do you agree or disagree with the quote from Verduin?
LikeLike
Tim, Have you read the 95 Theses?
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/ninetyfive.html
Most of it is about the selling and purchase of indulgences for pardons, etc.
I do not disagree with Sola Fide at all. But it should not stop there. True saving faith puts us into sanctification. We actually start to look and act like real believers. :o)
LikeLike
“The author of the blog, the insufferable Phil Johnson, bemoaned the fact that women had the audacity to criticize a teacher of “Piper’s stature” rather than being in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.”
Did Johnson use the phrase “barefoot and pregnant?” Or were you putting words in people’s mouths again?
LikeLike
He actually called them “loud” and something else…what was it, Paul?
Scott, I don’t expect you to understand but I stopped reading over at Pyro when Phil told one commenter in the comments section on a thread a few years back that if a man asked his wife a doctrinal question she would not dare answer it even though she knows the answer perfectly well. See, it would be a sin for her to answer such a thing…whether she is in the grocery store or at church. Only a man can answer it. See, she must know her place…ergo…the kitchen. (wink)
Such rules! I am so glad the women in the underground church in China do not know about this rule as they street witness and go to jail for it. Perhaps they can come here and be missionaries to us.
LikeLike
Scott,
Read it again. What’s in quotations and what denotes attitude? And I was nice. I didn’t address Johnson’s embarrassing contention that church polity extends to women standing for the faith outside of church. And this guy runs a seminary? That’s just plain scary.
LikeLike
Ummmmmmm………….I don’t remember whining. Just stating a fact.
LikeLike
Also, “…a man of Piper’s stature” ? Are you kidding me? Gag, that’s just out there.
LikeLike
Sorry Tim! It was wrong of me to project whining on to you.
If you read the Theses you can see it was Sola Fide in relation to buying indulgences to get people into heaven. It was a step in the right direction from the corruption of Rome. But let us not stop there. Let us go on to run the race.
LikeLike