Paul's Passing Thoughts

MacArthur; 2012 Resolved Conference; Feminism; John Huss; and Mac’s Continued New Calvinesque Demise

Posted in Uncategorized by Paul M. Dohse Sr. on April 3, 2012

“But again, this is a prime example of how New Calvinists put dead men between us and our Bibles, and then distort history to make their case for progressive justification.”

“What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if Huss is an authority for promoting Christocentrisity in all reality, then he also ought to be an authority for ordaining women in the church.”        

As I learn more and more about the New Calvinist movement, and Reformed history in general, I have to believe that the blogosphere drives New Calvinists blogkers. More on that later. New Calvinism is a return to hardcore Reformed philosophy. In 1970, the real Reformation gospel was rediscovered and systematized by the Australian Forum. The Forum was one of several recovery movements that rediscovered the Reformation gospel since the 17th century. Why does this gospel tend to disappear from time to time? Because it’s not the truth (it’s progressive justification), and it is always accompanied by spiritual tyranny. In fact, the Pilgrims fled to the New World to escape the Augustinian Church of England. You see, among many other issues, the Pilgrims disagreed with it being against the law to not attend C of E “worship” services. However, the Church of England was a little more merciful than New Calvinist Mark Dever—they would merely have the government fine you for not going to church; Mark Dever excommunicated 256 of his church members for nonattendance, an act that launched him into New Calvinist folklore and his present thriving popularity among New Calvinists.

The movement has continued to build on the original foundations of Reformed tradition, even persecuting Old Calvinists that have been sanctified over time by spiritual common sense. New Calvinists continue to promote their neo-reformation by pointing to all things old: creeds; counsels; confessions; catechisms (shorter and longer); and especially dead men of legendary status. Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Owen, Edwards, Spurgeon, etc., and the subject of this year’s 2012 Resolved Conference, John Huss, who will be promoted into New Calvinist iconic canonism by John MacArthur at this year’s Resolved Conference (sponsored by MacArthur’s church). From here, it just gets too rich.

I watched the promotional video clip on Resolved.org ( http://vimeo.com/iamresolved/re12theme ). Four years ago, I would have taken what MacArthur says in the clip at face value because of my former respect/trust for him. But he is a New Calvinist now, and this clip will be used to demonstrate how New Calvinism is making a fool of John MacArthur in the eyes of what used to be a stalwart of the faith. If not for the internet and the blogosphere, God’s people would helpless against the New Calvinist propaganda machine. Back in the day, if you were reading the Calvin Institutes and wanted more information on Augustine because Calvin quotes him in what seems like every other sentence, you were pretty much out of luck. But not in our day. Trust me, Al Gore didn’t invent the internet—God did.

So, since I no longer trust MacArthur, I simply googled “John Huss,” and what Robert Brinsmead said to me the other day in an email immediately came to mind; this is a paraphrase: “I wrote a treatise on Ellen White’s theology that only highlighted the positive points, but that’s what everybody else does with Luther’s writings.” Amen, and this is what the New Calvinists do to build their Reformation motif (at least Brinsmead is honest about it) that drives their propaganda machine; except in this case with Huss, it’s fodder for good humor.

In the clip, MacArthur claims that Huss was burned at the stake for preaching “three things”: every believer is part of the church; the Bible as sole authority; but primarily, Huss’ contention that Christ was the head of his church, and not the pope. Oh really? Of course, the third “thing” is to make the case for New Calvinism’s belief that only Christ is significant in regard to redemptive history. But again, this is a prime example of how New Calvinists put dead men between us and our Bibles, and then distort history to make their case for progressive justification.

Huss was burned at the stake for many other “things” other than the three that MacArthur mentioned in the clip, and one of them is greatly illumined by the lamp of hypocrisy if you consider this year’s Shepherd’s Conference (also sponsored by MacArthur’s church). One of the featured speakers was Voddie  Baucham who is a high profile figure in the Patriarchy movement. Baucham was all the rage at the conference which produced endless Twitter posts singing his praises. New Calvinists are also responsible for the Danvers Statement sponsored by The Counsel on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. MacArthur himself has said: “God cannot be on display in a church where a woman is preaching.” This quote is from his series that contended against speaking in tongues. Oh, did I mention that the “Reformed Charismatic” CJ Mahaney will be featured at the Resolved Conference this year?

This brings us back to all of the much ado about Huss at this year’s Resolved Conference. Other than the “three things” MacArthur mentions, Huss was tricked into attending a counsel at Prague to discuss his many “radical” teachings:

He became a proponent of the ideas of the English reformer and theologian John Wycliffe. Huss like Wycliffe denounced the immorality of clergy, the sale of indulgences, accumulation of wealth by the clergy and the church and saw the Bible as the final authority in ecclesiastical matters. He was a proponent of the laity taking communion in both kinds, that is to say the bread and the wine, at a time when only the clergy received communion in both kinds. He translated the Bible into the language of the people and said “Women were made in the image of God and should fear no man” setting the stage for women to preach at Hussite services and participate in governing councils, not to mention fight beside their men in battle. It was the teaching and writing about his radical ideas that brought the attention of the Pope to Jan Hus [emphasis mine (Online source: http://historyreconsidered.net/The_Hussites.html)%5D.

Oh my. Huss was an advocate of feminism. On the one hand, Huss was executed for the crux of the Reformation (supposedly), but on the other hand, God was not on display in the churches of his followers because women were preaching there. Which is it Mac? I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways—the blogosphere will not allow it. Let me add some additional references to this point:

Hus was influenced by Wyclif, but he went further than the Englishman ever did. Like Wyclif, much of what Hus wanted was a kind of return to basics: an end to abuses in the clergy, an emphasis on simple Christianity of the sort practiced by the Apostles. He went further in advocating unfettered preaching, and he explicitly refused to recognize a special status for the clergy. He came close to the Donatist heresy in claiming that Christians should listen only to priests who lived virtuous lives. He condemned the upper clergy as corrupt parasites and denied the pope any special powers in the secular world. He acknowledged the apostolic succession, but said only virtuous men were true popes and in any case their authority was strictly spiritual. Like Wyclif, when the Church appeared unwilling to reform itself, Hus argued that it was the duty of the Christian prince to undertake the reform and to use the coercive powers of the state if necessary. The reformed Church should be placed under the dominion of the prince.

Hus advocated both a Czech and a German Bible. He believed the common man could read the word of God without priestly intervention. He published a New Testament and Psalms in 1406 in Czech, followed by a complete Bible in 1413-1414.

It’s interesting to note that in 1412 Hus published a tract entitled “Recognizing the true way to salvation” in which he chose a woman to represent humanity in general. He told women they were made in the image of God and that they should act with dignity and courage and should fear no man. Among the Hussites, women preached and wrote. But after 1421, men again dominated the movement. I do not know the details of why this change occurred [emphasis added (Dr. E.L. Skip Knox, Boise State University; online source: http://europeanhistory.boisestate.edu/latemiddleages/heresy/13.shtml)%5D.

This can also be verified by the fact that Huss was primarily influenced by Wycliffe, and the Lollard Movement spawned by him was populated with women preachers. Why is it ok to prop the Reformers up as authorities by picking and choosing from their teachings only that which helps one’s agenda?  Why not leave dead men out of the equation and do what MacArthur used to do: point to the Scriptures as our authority—not dead Reformers. Why can’t the Resolved Conference Have a Scriptural theme instead of a man theme?  This is the credibility problem you run into when men are your primary authority. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander; if Huss is an authority for promoting Christocentrisity in all reality, then he also ought to be an authority for ordaining women in the church. But of course, the fruit of such hypocrisy does not fall far from the tree of those he associates with: http://solasisters.blogspot.com/2012/02/john-piper-comments-about-reverend.html .

Something else about this promotional clip makes me wonder. MacArthur presents Huss as a gospel preacher turning the World upside down with the whole the pen is mightier than the sword scenario. I wonder if Mac is going to mention that Huss had a standing military army? Huss set the pace for the following Reformation mentality:

Like Wyclif, when the Church appeared unwilling to reform itself, Hus argued that it was the duty of the Christian prince to undertake the reform and to use the coercive powers of the state if necessary. The reformed Church should be placed under the dominion of the prince (Ibid).

The Hussite army had one of the most feared military leaders in all of human history, Johann Ziska, and he invented one of the most effective military weapons of all time which was named after Huss. A picture of it follows. After Huss was executed, The Hussites kicked some serious Catholic butt and took names.

Say, that picture will look awesome on those high-tech screens at the Resolved Conference, don’t you think? In general, the Reformers followed the philosophy of Plato that government powers are needed to keep the totally depraved (and their uncontrollable instincts) contained.  And if you read the email I get, you would know that present-day New Calvinists use everything but a Hussite wagon to keep their totally depraved zombies in line.

MacArthur needs to bail from this movement, ask the church for forgiveness, and salvage what’s left of his legacy. That is, if it’s not already too late. Meanwhile, the more bloggers the better. Let the earth be full of them. Let them be ever fruitful and multiply. Let every word that comes from the mouths of New Calvinists be googled. But, of course, all truth is God’s truth unless it comes from the internet—the other internet—not the Geneva internet.

paul

8 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Les's avatar Les said, on April 3, 2012 at 4:25 PM

    Paul,

    I’m having trouble reconciling the quote about women above which you use to imply? state? that Huss advocated women in he clergy, with this from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs,

    “Now there remain six articles of thirty-nine. These are said to be drawn out of
    another treatise, which he wrote against Stanislaus de Znoyma.

    “The first article: ‘No man is lawfully elect or chosen, in that the electors or the
    greater part of them have consented, with a lively voice, according to the custom of
    men, to elect and choose any person, or that he is thereby the manifest and true
    successor of Christ, or vicar of Peter in the ecclesiastical office; but in that that any
    man doth most abundantly work meritoriously to the profit of the church, he hath
    more abundant power given him of God thereunto.’

    [Huss’s] The answer: These things which
    follow are also written in my book: ‘It standeth in the power and hands of wicked
    electors to choose a woman into the ecclesiastical office, as it appeareth by the
    election of Agnes, which was called John, who held and occupied the pope’s place and
    dignity by the space of two years and more.

    “‘It may also be that they do choose a thief, a murderer, or a devil, and
    consequently they may also elect and choose antichrist.

    “‘It may also be that for love, covetousness, or hatred, they do choose some
    person whom God doth not allow. And it appeareth that that person is not lawfully
    elect and chosen; insomuch as the electors or the greater part of them have consented
    and agreed together according to the custom of men, upon any person, or that he is
    thereby the manifest successor or vicar of Peter the apostle, or any other in the
    ecclesiastical office.

    “‘Therefore, they which most accordingly unto the Scripture do elect and
    choose, revelation being set apart, do only pronounce and determine by some
    probable reason upon him they do elect and choose, whereupon whether the electors
    do so choose good or evil, we ought to give credit unto the works of him that is
    chosen; for in that point that any man doth most abundantly work meritoriously to the
    profit of the church, he hath thereby more abundant power given him of God
    thereunto. And hereupon, saith Christ in the 10th of John, give credit unto works.”

    Maybe I’m just missing something. He went on later in the proceedings to say, “And forasmuch as many of these articles are said to be mine, which were never in my
    mind or thought to hold or teach, how should I then renounce them by an oath? But as
    touching those articles which are mine indeed, if there be any man which can teach
    me contrariwise unto them, I will willingly perform that which you desire.””

    Had you seen this from Huss where he repudiates the idea of women in clergy?

    Thanks,

    Les

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on April 3, 2012 at 6:39 PM

      Les,
      Yes, I was aware of it via a source reference that added that same citation as proof contrary to what it seems to state otherwise. Apparently, they saw something in the larger context that I don’t see here, and I can’t find a copy of Foxe’s book in my library. If I wanted to be a wiseguy, I could say that Huss was totally depraved and that we may assume he was lying, but the better response is that this kinda makes the following point: of all the great examples in the Bible of men of God, why not make the theme about one of them?(Because what the Scriptures say about them is indisputable and not open to different historical accounts). That’s letting the Bible drive what the conference is about (exegesis). But no, they wanted the conference to be a certain theme and then went out to find something that would substantiate their eisegesis. A classic example is another clip on the Resolved.org site were Holland talks about the placard his congregation installed on the top of the pulpit. The message calls for him to preach Christ from every passage. That’s eisegesis on steroids. I’m sorry, but I don’t think every verse in the Bible is about Jesus.

      These are the kinds of questions you get into when men become your authority. Which, if we are totally depraved, why in the #&*% would you want to do that to begin with? Anyway, yes, I was aware of that reference, which caused me to invest about 3 hours of additional research in the post. The preponderance of my research resulted in what you read. However, again, if men are a standard, we have a huge problem here. the conference clearly takes that of Huss that is needed for their agenda, and leaves the rest on the shelf–that’s just stinking bogus.

      paul

      Like

  2. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on April 3, 2012 at 11:28 PM

    Well, I am new here, but from what I see is, more then likely, contradictions- I could be wrong of course. When men became or become the leading voice over Scripture you then see a pattern of contradictions. One moment they say one thing then the next day the totally opposite. When I was in a Reformed church, i heard these contradictions quite often: one moment it was ok to pray for one finding a spouse, but then another time it was told there was no need, for your spouse was predestined by God in the first place- drove me crazy. I personally think that these men read so much from other men that their minds are then muddled with more opinions (false exegesis) then facts- this then drives their worldview and belief system.
    At best I myself think they are more confused then Biblically astute.
    I remember, shortly before we left, we were doing a study on contentment from one of the Puritan greats (cannot remember his name). It was a six week study- ON CONTENTMENT! 300+ pages long. I thought to myself- ok the Bible has a few verses on contentment and I could grasp what that meant, but 300+ pages long on contentment taught by a guy I had NO WISH to go back to, as far as, time in history! No thank you, no wearing thick, woolen dresses with head coverings and sitting in a church pew for 8 hours hoping that someone would not catch you talking to yourself and think you might be a witch.

    The problem is that they mingle enough truth in with non-truth and wha-la….. you snatch them up with the Hegelian Dialectic. Then further down you go til one does not know exactly what REAL truth is.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on April 4, 2012 at 7:01 AM

      T4H,
      Rightly said. Not only that, the times of the Reformers were entangled in all kinds of politics. And having Calvin as a standard is just a huge problem. More to your point: I get email about what these guys are trying to do in regard to getting into bed with the government and their dominion mentality. That’s the Reformers, not the Bible.
      paul

      Like

  3. trust4himonly's avatar trust4himonly said, on April 4, 2012 at 7:32 AM

    You are right about the Reformers getting into bed with the government- we are already seeing this take place.
    I thought that the secular government I had to worry about, but I am beginning to see that many of the “Christian” churches and organizations are just in the wings to snatch political power where the liberals have failed. It will be interesting, but do believe that more and more are seeing the hypocrisies. I for one am one of them.

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on April 4, 2012 at 7:52 AM

      New Calvinists, like their mentors before them, restrict free thought and private interpretation on the Bible. I will be posting on that this morning.

      Like

  4. grace driven's avatar grace driven said, on December 1, 2014 at 6:53 PM

    What you don’t understand is that everyone has error in their doctrine. Yes, CJ is charasmatic but he is good on other points. Tell me is there one man that you totally agree with other than yourself 🙂 Each person takes the core of christianity for general fellowship and then we pretty much go to a Church that agrees with most of the things we believe. IT’s called grace… think about it!

    Like

    • Paul M. Dohse Sr.'s avatar paulspassingthoughts said, on December 1, 2014 at 7:47 PM

      grace driven,

      There is no point to your point. CJ et al buy into the false gospel of progressive justification. Before you come around here lecturing me, learn what the gospel is.

      Like


Leave a reply to trust4himonly Cancel reply